| Limitations of Logic |
| Why logic isn't based on logic, what it is based on, and the role of the two |
| The truth is a very important thing to determine, because it establishes how we perceive the world and therefore what all of our acts of will are reactions to. Throughout history, therefore, much time has been devoted to trying to find truth. This enterprise, however, is secondary to what must be done before the search for the truth can be undertaken, that is, to determine how to find the truth, and how to know it for the truth once it is found. I find that this is a very interesting debate, and although I am not sure of my position, I have many ideas. First of all, logic is not logical. By that, I mean to say that the decision to rely on logic in order to make decisions is not a logical one. Further, even if the system of logic is accepted, to decide what is logically true requires the use of non-logical thinking. This is because of the fact that logic relies on assumptions, an idea which is certainly not original to me. Although it is a rather simple idea, I believe it has profound implications, especially in cases in which we would not think of using it. These implications have been especially reinforced in me because of the process I undertook to come to this conclusion. I am sure that before I thought of this, I had heard the idea that logic relies on assumptions. I had not, however, really taken it to heart. As I engaged in debates with classmates and on on-line forums, read books that related to the place of logic, and took classes like World Religions and Theory of Knowledge, I came across attempts to use logic for all decision making, or in other words, attempts to use logic on the assumption level. One debate was about the existence of God. I realized that basing the existence of God on faith rather than logic was not doing something that defied logic; it was simply operating outside the realm that logic could logically rule over. Similarly, I saw attempts to say that all morality could be determined through logic. At this point, I thought about how to any statement one person made about matters such as God or morality, someone else could always ask why that person believed that. To that answer, the question of why could be asked again. This cycle of question and answer would have to end somewhere, and beyond that point would lie assumptions made on the basis of something other than logic. I decided, therefore, that there must be one world of truth based on logic, that is, what is true in the material world, and another world of truth based on emotion, intuition, and spirituality, containing truths about morality and the existence of God. Later, I realized that all truths belonged in the second world, and I came to my present understanding. For the purposes of how it relates to logic, I would divide truth into three categories: what should be, what is in terms of this world, and what is in terms of the spiritual world. For all of these categories, it is possible to construct different models of how the truth is found. The one that gives logic the largest role starts off with basic assumptions and extends from there, like a tree from its roots. The model for what should be looks like a tree of vines growing from tangled roots. The roots of the tree are the assumptions about what should be. They are tangled and interconnected because, at least in my vision of what is right, I cannot trace my feelings to a single assumption, even related to a specific topic. For example, a basic political assumption I have is that human suffering should be alleviated. This, however, is not entirely accurate. For one, sometimes suffering is necessary for personal growth. So instead of one assumption, I would say my logic about what should be is based on a network of assumptions, for example that poverty is bad, people should be given opportunities to make the most of their lives, and peace is good. If this were the logical part of the tree, it would be circular logic. For example, poverty is bad because it creates crime, and crime is bad because it creates poverty. This, however, is not the logical part of the tree, and therefore it is perfectly fine for it to be circular. In the logical part of the tree, vines of logic extend from the roots of the tree, interconnecting when one logical point relates to another, but never in a circular manner like in the roots. The branches, which go from one statement of "should be" to the next, are if-then statements. In this part of the tree, I can say if I assume that the assumptions about what should be in the roots to be correct, these other statements about what should be must follow. For example, education should be a priority because it allows people to escape poverty. The tree that is a model for what is true in this world has a similar pattern to the "should be" tree, except that its root system is very basic. The assumptions that form this system are simple: what our six senses tell us is correct, and the system of logic predicts the correct truths. Note that the branches of this tree are much the same as those of the "should be" tree, because the assumptions of this second tree are also in the roots of the "should be" tree. Both systems deal with what exists in accordance with classical logic. For things dealing with God, the tree is the most complex. It is more like a sphere of vines, because the assumptions are not at the bottom, but rather throughout. There are some logical if-then vines, but they do not necessarily occupy their own specific region, as they do with the first two trees. Some assumptions are that God exists and God is good, and one logical vine is that since God loves us he wants the best for us. These trees show that it is definitely possible to put logic in its place without ignoring it, and they provide one answer to the question of how to determine truth. However sensible these models seem, they are, like all statements of truth, assumptions. There is not, therefore, any reason why we cannot say that logic has no place, or maybe just less of a place. What I am particular interested in is the possibility that additional assumptions could become part of the tree that deals with earthly reality and the "should be" tree. This would make these trees look more like the sphere of vines that makes up the tree dealing with God. A simple example is related to my belief that war should be a last resort. This obviously is in the "should be" tree. I assume that the death of children is bad, that the creation of hatred is bad, and various other things, and through logic, I come to the conclusion that if we want to protect children, prevent hate, and do other things I assume to be good, war should be a last resort. To change this tree in the way mentioned above, I could simply change the conclusion that war should be a last resort into an assumption, or keep it as both a logical conclusion and an assumption. This is what people do, for example, when they feel their spirituality prohibits or strongly discourages war. Doing this would not be especially revolutionary; it would just be raising the level of the roots. I have not really decided whether I feel it is a good idea to do this, but I definitely see what the validity would be in doing it. There are many fascinating examples of the conflict between the idea that information should be obtained through direct sensing or a combination of intuitive sensing and perception that is more abstract. One example of this divergence is focused around in belief in the Yeti of the Himalayas, otherwise known as Bigfoot. European scientists look at belief in the Yeti as whether it scientifically exists. If they don't find concrete proof, they don't believe in it. The natives of the Himalayas see it differently. Perhaps the Yeti cannot be proven, but that does not have anything to do with its real existence. The Yeti means something to those people in a very real way, through their intuitive beliefs and connections they have made in their minds based on the world around them. It is part of their cultural identity, even if it does not exist in a physical sense. Generally, the European method may seem rational and the Asian method might seem irrational. However, clearly, they both are based on making assumptions based on the senses. Europeans are basing assumptions on knowledge gained directly from senses. Asians are basing assumptions on more intuition and knowledge gained less directly from other senses. One experience that has led me to consider what is seen as the irrational approach, or the practice of placing different assumptions besides the rationality assumption and the sense perception at the root of the tree which determines what is true in the physical world, is my experience with debate. I have debated with many ignorant people that I could easily out-debate with superior logic; however, I have also debated with people who could easily beat me in a similar way. Many times when I have debated with people in between, I first presented my arguments, and then they destroyed them with superior logic. I could not think of any way to counter their arguments, so I did some Internet research and came back with arguments that destroyed them in turn. This made me think about whether either of us could possibly be logically right. It seemed like the debate could keep going on in that cycle; I wondered how either of us could really be logically right. The role of experts also came up, and I wondered what authority I could have not being an expert. Then again, I wondered what authority an expert could have. Obviously, experts disagree, so that is not a guarantee of being right. If logic takes two people who are equally knowledgeable and perceptive to two different places, it seems like logic is not the final authority. These thoughts led me to many different conclusions. Firstly, they allowed me to appreciate the legitimacy of the arguments of others. I came to realize that there were incredibly intelligent people supporting every view imaginable, and almost no view could be easily dismissed for its lack of logical backing. On the other hand, I realized that my arguments were not as infallible as I thought. Firstly, many people easily destroyed arguments I had previously seen as unassailable. Secondly, I often experimented in arguing from the opposite perspective, and it was remarkably easy to do, to the point where in some moments, I almost forgot my original beliefs. In a way, I saw that what I saw as logically correct was an almost random choice on my part. These things have come together to make me question the model of the tree showing what is true in the physical world with the only assumptions being that our senses and rationality tell the truth. Perhaps both my opponent in an argument and myself are equally correct in terms of logic, and what really separates us is an ideology based on emotion and intuition. Perhaps people who are not experts can know more than experts because they have a more perceptive intuition. I know that many things I logically believe are at least based on very simple logic, if not pure emotion. The thing I am not sure of is if this is perfectly acceptable reality. Perhaps I will never decide, but I know that in the process of searching for the answer in my self, others, and the Universe, I will gain some greater understanding of the essence of reality. |