Logic, or how to think
My 大象传媒 controllers want me to put myself about a bit more. They would like me to spend more time cruising the blogosphere trying to pick up new partners. But I’m afraid I’m not ready for that, and I’m not sure I’ll ever want to be. I’m an old-fashioned sort, preferring to wait discreetly for things to turn up, and allowing things to develop slowly, under their own momentum.
And it seems to me that’s what’s now happening on Freethinkinguk.
I am keen to offer you a few more titbits about the history of freethinking, as well as further comments on democracy, prejudice, the idiocy of the internet, free speech, and the ways in which religious ideas continue to influence people who imagine they have got beyond them. These themes, and several others too (the history of the future, the politics of resentment) are jostling in my in-tray. And I must admit I'm not sure I’ll be able to fit them all in before the plug is pulled on the Freethinking blogs, which is due to happen in about six weeks. In any case they will all have to wait a little longer, while I attend to some themes that have germinated here on freethinkinguk in the past few days
There have been some exceptionally interesting comments on my last two posts (‘Humble Opinions’ and ‘A short history of freethinking’), and I want tease out one particular strand in them, which I fear might otherwise gets lost. It's about the nature of logic.
Nadim offered a terrific response to ‘Humble Opinions’. Amongst many other good points, he observed that people tend to see their opinions as a kind of private property. This means that they experience criticism as if it were an assault or a mugging, or at any rate a violation of their rights.
What’s wrong with this proprietorial attitude toward thinking? Fundamentally, that it presupposes that thoughts exist on their own. Whereas in fact thoughts operate in teams or networks: and each thought is the thought that it is because it is different from millions of others, and incompatible with many of them. You cannot affirm one thing without committing yourself, willy nilly, to lots of others, many of which you will not even be aware of. Working out these hidden implications is a large part of the task of thinking.
A willingness to have your thoughts exposed to criticism is therefore more than a matter of modesty and good manners: it is a matter of logic.
Now some commenters (eg Number 11 and Mark Astill) seem to think that logic is a tiresome external constraint, a bit like the rules of etiquette. They appear to believe that flouting the rules of logic is no more reprehensible than eating your pudding with a soup spoon.
But that is a complete misunderstanding. Logic, as they say in the business, comprises constitutive rules, rather than mere regulative ones. It is not a constraint on what you can meaningfully say, so much as a condition of saying anything meaningful at all. You cannot say anything about the world without denying something else, and there is not much point in saying anything if you cannot imagine how anyone could disagree with it. Take away the rules of logic and you will be left with no meaningful statements at all, only babble.
I agree that Logic comprises constitutive rules.
Okay, you can say a contribution is illogical. Has being able to do this altered the world much? Unreason is alive and doing very well, even if not doing very well for us.
It's a bit like the battle with bacteria. Find a way through the logical defences, to persuade, and the technique flourishes. Are the world's con-men a race of superbugs?
Have people the stomach to make it really hard for dishonesty?
take away what you consider are the rules of logic and we may, just may become free! and freethinkers!
All of these comments and arguments are assuming that we live in a very logical world, really? and as long as we apply logic to this world and ourselves then everything is clear.
Where indeed is the proof that there is logic and it works.
Logic I think is often portrayed by those who believe in it to gain power, control and money.
All I have seen in my time on this planet is the world changing, not necessarily for the better and all in the name of logic.
Even the profession of 'critics' would argue that they apply logic to their musings and advice - and we all know where that logic gets them.
The philosphers play with logic, the business men use it to their advantage and the rest of us get on with our lives without giving it much thought.
If I make a decision to screw my business partner out of millions and become richer, is that a logical decision?
If I decide to give all my money away to charity is that a logical decision or one based in pure emotion that I may regret later.
Did mother Theresa use a process of logical thinking to devote her life to the poor and unwashed of India?
Did Bush use sound logic to invade Iraq?
It would seem that a long history of 'logic' has got us no further along the road of enlightenment as a species and we would be far better off exploring the concept of "intuition" as a far sounder and more progressive way of dealing with the world, ourselves and our neighbours
Again you have my sympathies with regard to the editors. Time is always in the mix somewhere. Can we help?
Syntax and Semantics, now those words have meaning. They made me think of John Nash and the games he played, and how he played them. Most of all it keeps me mind-full of saying anything at all - a lesson for us all. The water gets deep here, and I'm kind of thunked out at the moment, so I'll head up to somewhere shallow.
When we exercise this capacity to speak, what constraints do we place on ourselves, our actions? When we seek to act, is it to act individually, or is it to act altruistically? Do we play fair?
often, the logical thing to do is....
say nothing and listen to radio 3 playing beethoven :)
Fitus Oates
Master of the rebels has spoken yet again. All attempts to get him to accept reason are futile. Inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, as was once said. Perhaps it's right that hell will freeze over before he stops extolling the virtues of the human spirit in the face of cold logic. It's just that I feel it's possible to write of nobility without becoming irrational.
Jason: I gave it a go, but Bac's gave me nightmares! :-)
Jason: I gave it a go, but Bac's gave me nightmares! :-)
I don't think Fitz's beliefs are harmful to himself, because I think he knows when to be calculating - how much water he'll need in the outback - and when he can give vent to inspiration. But I remember a religious couple, one of whom had had a slight stroke, saying they weren't worried about having driven, because Jesus was watching over them.
What about the appeal to famous figures like Mother Theresa? Are we sure that these people put logic a poor second? Aren't the Florence Nightingales of the world successful (and remembered) because they were ruthless in channelling their passions?
Perhaps many aren't using logic like a philosopher, but they're often being logical without realising it. I think I'd prefer a world in which logic was practised, not exalted but then privately ignored.
last night I sat in the balmy night air, under the southern star and listened enthralled to a 'real life' philosopher who stood on a dias three feet away.
David Suzuki, on his world wide tour to promote his new autobiography.
He gave us a very entertaining and potted version of his life from internment camps to American University campuses, to Amazon rain forests and his beloved Vancouver.
Here is a scientist, who uses logic sometimes in his work but also does things to defy logic.
He has defied the logical thinking and plans of the Brazilian govt and Canadian govt and a few more along the way to destroy our planet in various ways.
Here is a man who for me is an environmental philospher, but one who just doesn't discuss philosophies of life but gets out there and puts them into action, for the benefit of us all.
That's why for my money who is a 'real life' philosopher not an 'armchair' one
Here is some bad reasoning…
(1) "I think America is a stupid country!"
(2) "Why?"
(3) "Well, they believe in creationism, voted for an idiot, and are ignorant bullies when it comes to the rest of the world"
It seems to me that people use all kinds of scholarly verbs (e.g. think, consider, reckon, know) to state their beliefs - as in line (1) - not because they are warranted, but because these terms sound authoritative. However, when it comes to asking for reasons as to why a particular belief is true - as in line (2) - I myself cannot imagine anything better than logic as a means of assessing their response.
I suppose I could be unimaginative, and so I would be interested to hear what ‘logic sceptics’ would substitute for logic in their evaluation of line (3) as a reason for the belief expressed by line (1).
Perhaps there are logical, introverted, minds who later come to see other kinds of beauty; just as there are minds bowled over by art, love and relationships, who come to appreciate some sense being made of the world whenever the chaotic experiences become overwhelming.
How much does extolling the virtues of being rational, have an influence? To an extent, as when one's doing a mathematical proof, it doesn't matter. Should we just preach to the converted? Is the world a place where we should be glad to be out-of-school, free of the teacher who tries to get us to think logically? The point is that the days of wine and roses get shortened in direct proportion to that kind of drunkenness.
logic has big limits, which is why experimentation is so much better
If names can be meaningfully used even when all of one's information about the bearer is false, then surely logic isn't always constitutive of meaning?
Thankyou Jonathan (forgive the familiar, only met you once) for finding my comments bearing in some manner on the freethinking topics discussed in this blog. I think it’s proper and right that at this stage you point out the correct and precise status of logic as the precondition of meaning (and we might want to add ‘anything at all’), and see what happens when the waves hit the shore.
My position, however, must avoid this, as I’m aware of the transcendent nature of logic and would never say that logic is not necessarily true.
My question would be: What can we mean by the phrase ‘flouting the laws of logic’? If we mean that the statement ‘A = -A’ makes no sense, to a point I’ll agree - insofar as we understand the statement as a logical procedure, it couldn’t be more of a failure if it tried. Rather than being a false fact, the statement fails to say anything of anything at all. But I can’t agree with Parmenides that we cannot speak of what is not – I accept that we talk meaningfully about contradictions, which means that ‘A=-A’ is not something utterly unmeaningful. It differs from ‘B=-B’ by virtue at least of the signs involved, which we have to admit even if we fiercely oppose them as saying the exact same thing (i.e. nothing), and thereby admit them as different senses. Poetics takes this leaps and bounds further, and while we can’t find meaning in the logical sense in a nonsensical poem, for plentiful meaningful reasons we say that one is different from another and accomplishes something different.
My point is that we can, but do not necessarily treat ‘flouting the laws of logic’ as meaningless, and this is where, for me, the important distinction comes in. For what is it to treat something as meaningless? Could we deal with something that is totally meaningless, at all? Since it would be nothing, then no, we cannot – but a something is never nothing. To treat something as meaningless, in analytic philosophy, is not in fact to treat it as utterly meaningless, which is impossible, although this is the intention.
I must make it clear also that logic, in itself and by itself, is completely meaningless. It follows from what I have said that it is nothing at all (which I think fits with its apriori status) and that we cannot know it. I think this leaves logicians as practitioners of ethics.
In light of this, what is to be made of my position, and my assertion of and agreement about logic as an absolute logic, and my apparently logical moves?
""What can we mean by the phrase ‘flouting the laws of logic’? ""
logic as we know it is as self-limiting as we are ourselves. Everything we have become, have developed, believe in is not the universe, but a mere small part of it.
to flout the laws of logic is a very healthy state of mind to be in. The great sages of our times and many current ones too - do it everyday and have abundant lives.
I have a friend who's catch phrase was once "if you cannot see it and measure it - then it doesn't exist"
for him that was a very logical process of thinking - he was a scientist of sorts.
And there in lies the lie - man's or some men's beliefs are that if I am not able to see it or touch it or even think it - then it doesn't exist - it is not logical.
They in fact cannot see outside of the square - or indeed move outside of the square.
I am always bemused when I read of the latest astronomical discovery - it usually goes something like this:
"our lastest discovery has surprised us all - what we thought was the true facts about this phenomena has been 'proven' incorrect and we now see it all in a different light" (until the next time - my own words)
Logic is a very poor attempt by man (women tend to stick to intuition more) to understand his world and what is has for him or does to him.
It can be compared to the thinking process of a small child in a kindergarten, who takes in all in his/her surroundings and then considers that's all there is to my life.
I repeat myself " the man who looks on glass - on it may stay his eye - or if he chooseth through it pass and then the heavens espy.
Logic comes with several other other commodities - rose coloured glasses, a ruler, magnifying glass and a well practiced smirk!
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof we should remain silent". Wittgenstein philosophised that logic frequently got stymied by the medium in which it was expressed. Words are slippery, sleazy companiable things that tell all of us what we want to hear.
Thinking expressed in words can be argued against by logic, certainly. But a referee is needed as well as a book of rules.
Saying that you cannot imagine how anyone could disagree with you is a mere rhetorical flourish, not a near-death experience.
After all any expert shown on television only carries off his moment of oracular judgement by virtue of his command of the acting out of authoritative certainty. Don't blame the people if they try it on, too.