Few men, and fewer women, understand the place and utility of logic. Of course, there is no shortage of self-proclaimed ‘logical’ types who swear by it and think of it as the instrument that can be relied upon to supply surefire answers to all problems under the sun. (To what extent does logic govern their everyday lives is a completely different story however, but that is for another day. Suffice it to say here that it is very easy to overestimate oneself in this regard.) On the other extreme of the spectrum are those who maintain that logic is a failsafe recipe for going astray. They refuse to touch it with a bargepole on grounds that it is little more than a collection of childish games, albeit with some extremely dangerous conclusions. The former group is guilty of overestimating the power of logic, whereas the latter misses out on the many real benefits that it has to offer.
As often happens to be the case, the wise stance lies somewhere in between these two extremes. What makes either side so stubbornly resistant to seeing the bigger picture is the fact that each is in possession of a significant portion of the truth. The trouble is that being partly right, both sides are partly wrong too. Those overly enamoured of logic need to understand that while logic no doubt helps one to think clearly, it cannot be expected to bring any new information to the table. Those, on the other hand, who are allergic to logic need to realize that it is an extremely handy tool that enables one to spot inconsistencies lurking in their dark hiding places that would otherwise remain unnoticed owing to vagueness of the argument or the sheer beauty and eloquence of its expression.
Those who hold that being logical is the be-all and end-all of everything are advised to try and convince some enlightened logical youth that his parents were not guilty of impudence when they decided to bring him into the world without his prior consent. The youth’s stance may sound ridiculous to many, but it is not necessarily illogical. If complete ownership of one’s life– in which private liberty, freedom and individual rights constitute the ultimate value– happens to be the cornerstone of someone’s philosophical framework, then the position makes a great deal of sense. For there is no valid retort to the argument then, except challenging this very foundation. If, on the other hand, the framework happens to be founded on God’s Will (the way God wants to run the universe), for example, or anything that demands humility on the part of man, then the same position can have immense entertainment value.
Like any tool, logic can be used to do useful work as well as cause havoc. It is matchless in its utility to help identify and weed out inconsistencies and self-contradictions from a thought system. But that is where its utility ends. Being a great one for logic is no guaranty for wisdom whatsoever.
Logic alone, then, is no assurance for a sound philosophy of life. While everybody should learn to be as logical as possible, it must never be forgotten that logic, like mathematics, consists of certain rules that, in the final analysis, merely yield tautologies. Bertrand Russell famously described mathematics as the subject where we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. Logic, being a branch of mathematics, is the same. To its credit, its conclusions are certain. But there is no reason to believe that they are necessarily judicious as well.
It all inevitably comes down to axioms. We are all familiar with children asking the frustrating ‘Why?’ question ad infinitum. ‘Do not handle the knife!’ ‘Why?’ ‘You will get hurt.’ ‘Why?’ ‘Because it is sharp.’ ‘Why?’ ‘To cut fruit.’ ‘Why?’ ‘So that we can keep ourselves nourished.’ ‘Why?’ ‘To live and be healthy.’ ‘Why?’… A time soon comes when there is no answer to ‘Why?’ At that stage, one has no choice but to accept something (without question)– the axiom. The rest of the story can be logical (or not) but the axiom, being outside the system, cannot be categorized either as logical or otherwise. Especially on the fundamental questions of life (where conclusions from higher frameworks cannot provide the axioms for lower ones– laws of physics as axioms for chemistry theorems, for example), it is very much a matter of temperament, for certain personality types happen to find certain kinds of axioms more appealing than others. This is where good judgment is so indispensable.
The human capacity for doublethink (believing in two contradictory things at the very same time) is stupendous. Therefore, men and women tend to often get their logic wrong. However, on many occasions, when the debating parties accuse one another of being illogical, what really prevents them from seeing eye to eye is not any inconsistencies of argument (logical failure) but the very different foundations on which their respective philosophical frameworks rest.
Many humans are guilty of unduly glorifying logic. They need to appreciate the fact that with a little effort, the most ridiculous of stances can be justified using logical arguments. Another person can prove the exact opposite to be true, again very logically, starting from other axiom(s). Each party would likely feel very strongly against the other’s premises; but neither will be able to prove the other’s axioms faulty because once one goes back sufficiently, there is no proving or disproving axioms; instead, axioms are accepted (without proof) as foundations, and the rest of the superstructure is then constructed on those foundations.
Like any tool, logic can be used to do useful work as well as cause havoc. It is matchless in its utility to help identify and weed out inconsistencies and self-contradictions from a thought system. But that is where its utility ends. Being a great one for logic is no guaranty for wisdom whatsoever.
