One of the most annoying problems I
encounter is the inability to communicate. It’s not a problem I encounter once
in a while, but practically every day. Sometimes I’m the one who’s struggling
with my words; sometimes it’s my online teachers, sometimes my friends or
parents. And we are all not just groping for words. We’re also trying to think clearly.
What should we do to solve this
problem? How can we teach ourselves to think? I have a solution that I find
most alluring: traditional logic.
A few years back, I studied Martin
Cothran’s Traditional Logic Book I
(published by Memoria Press), his intro course on formal logic. I didn’t take
the subject very seriously then, and as a result, I was lazy with it. When I
finished the book (I wonder if I did even that), I put it away and didn’t think
too much about it for a long time, except in a few cases.
But several months ago I attended a
talk on the Liberal Arts by Andrew Pudewa. His message on the power of
traditional education prompted me to go back and study Logic once again.
I’m very eager to learn Logic. The
reason behind all my eagerness is this: I long to think for myself, to pursue
the truth on my own steam. I want to think clearly and to see clearly. I’m so
tired of the inability to form my own thoughts and communicate them to others. Now
that I am taking Logic, a whole new world of communication is opening before
me.
But to teach us how to think, what
does Traditional Logic teach us? How is it useful to us every day? I’ll give you a brief overview. To make it
interesting, I’ll keep it short. Logic teaches us that:
1.
The mind reasons in three distinct actions:
first it grasps concepts, then it affirms or denies certain things about them,
and finally it connects judgements together, drawing conclusions.
2.
Two terms can be equated to one another by
equating them to a third. For instance, if A is C and B is C, then A is B. Two
terms may also be non-equated to one another by means of a third term. If A is
C and B is not C, then A is not B.
3.
There are four kinds of propositions in logic.
These may oppose each other in four ways, and equal each other in three.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, but I hope you get the
idea. Now, how will any of these principles help you in the real world? I’ll
give you a couple examples.
Firstly, many people believe opposing statements without
thinking. Consider the following conversation:
Skeptic: There are no absolutes.
Logician: Is that statement absolutely true?
Skeptic: Yes.
Logician: Then you would call it an absolute. So you actually
believe in the existence of at least one absolute: namely that there are none.
I’ll break this example down to make the Skeptic’s problem
more lucid. The skeptic really believes two things:
1.
No absolutes exist.
2.
Some absolutes exist (one absolute, namely that there are none).
According to Logic, these statements are opposed to each
other by contradiction. Contradictory statements cannot both be true or false.
Thus one must be true and the other false. When the skeptic claimed that no
absolutes exist, he was backing himself into a logical corner, since in order
to claim that no absolutes exist he had to create a new absolute. His only
option would be to give up the attempt to deny the existence of absolute
truths. (I am stating his only logical
option. He would probably try a whole multitude of other tactics that have
little or no relation to logic.)
Secondly, terms, can be equated to each other by a method
called the categorical syllogism. It’s based on a thought process that many
people use all the time without even realizing it. The Puritans, for example,
believed that all people who floated in water were witches. Based on this
belief, they could determine who was a witch, and who wasn’t. Syllogistically,
their thought process would look something like this:
All people who float are witches.
This person is a person who floats.
Therefore, this person is a witch.
This is a valid syllogism, though one should immediately
challenge the truth of the first premise. In any case it demonstrates the
importance of the syllogism in the real world. There are lots of other examples
I could include that would reinforce my point even further, but I don’t have
the time to write them.
I’m really excited about logic. I want to share the good news
about it with you; I want you to catch my excitement from me and pass it on to
others. This is essential stuff. Everyone needs to know Logic; everyone needs
to be able to think with clarity.
And so, in conclusion, I strongly urge you to study
Traditional logic (a course that you can buy off memoriapress.com). We are in
great need of people who can read, write, think, and speak correctly. Why don’t
we reform our culture, starting with ourselves?
So.....There are absolutes? Or aren't there? I would say the existence of God is and absolute, correct?
ReplyDeleteYes, there are absolutes. In the example above, the skeptic has two options: either to affirm the existence of absolutes or deny it. But he cannot deny their existence. Therefore, he MUST affirm it.
DeleteSorry if you were confused. This problem does sometimes sound more convoluted than it actually is.
I very much enjoyed reading this Blog entry… thanks!
ReplyDeleteYou’ve highlighted an important truth regarding the application of formal logic... that the truth of our conclusions is dependent upon the truth of the premises which precede them. When our premises are true, then we can be confident in the conclusions which logically follow from them. On the other hand, we can fall into the trap of forming perfectly valid syllogisms which are based on premises whose truth is questionable (as you’ve done with your Puritan-witch example). This may seem like a pretty obvious statement; however, it goes a long way towards understanding/explaining the dilemma faced by the moral relativist, who can never be fully confident in his/her conclusions... since they are based on premises whose truth is always (by definition) relative/questionable. This predicament of the relativists also helps explain why their conclusions so often lead to contradiction.
I also applaud/agree with your conclusion regarding the contradiction between what the relativist professes to believe and actually believes... since their conclusions ultimately end up relying on some presupposed absolute(s), despite their denial of the existence of absolutes. A great strength (perhaps blessing is a better term) that we have as followers of Christ, is the ability to turn to His word and the teachings of His infallible Church as we form and apply premises from which to derive our conclusions about life. When our conclusions are based on these (Gods’/His Church) truths, we can rejoice with confidence in the conclusions that are revealed to us.
One last comment regarding your conclusion/challenge that "We are in great need of people who can read, write, think, and speak correctly. Why don’t we reform our culture, starting with ourselves?"… there are two verses that I believe support your thoughts and which serve as a challenge to train and use our minds as one important means/tool for evangelizing...
Romans 12:2 -- "Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect".
1 Peter 3:15 -- "... Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence".
Again, thanks for your thoughts re the power of formal logic!