The limits of logic:
The purpose of this piece, though explicit in the title, and implicit throughout, is to argue that logic is rather limited. As such, it makes little logical sense to view the world within a narrow logical sphere.
Once, when engaged in conversation at The Philosophy Takeaway’s stall with none other than the mathematical genius that is Dmitry Dereshev, I was drawn into a debate regarding how useful emotions are. The conversation -- as far is my fallible memory can recall – went a little like this:
DD: I do not see how emotions are useful. They are, to be honest, a waste of time.
SMP: Yet, if we are forced to experience emotions, doesn’t it make sense to understand them?
Having thought about this, I have to say that the latter statement can only be true. There are a couple of trite archetypes that come to mind: firstly, we have the autistic genius. He or she can understand particle physics, but when it comes to maintaining friendships, is proved to be woefully inadequate. Conversely, we have the overly emotional artist who is so dominated by their emotion that they are blinded by it. However, if they were given something highly logical to do, they would be flummoxed.
Therefore, it is clear that when it comes to the human condition, balance is essential.
Thus, when it comes to philosophy, should we be obsessed with logic? Isn’t philosophy, by definition, about wisdom, rather than logic? If we are obsessed with logic, are we in fact illogical?
A notable example of the limitations of logic is the liar paradox. I’ve written about this before, but it is applicable in the context of this article. A liar paradox is a sentence that carries a contradictory binary truth. An example of this is as follows: All men are liars. St Jerome elaborated upon this:
“I said in my alarm, 'Every man is a liar!' "(Psalm. 116:10) Is David telling the truth or is he lying? If it is true that every man is a liar, and David's statement, "Every man is a liar" is true, then David also is lying; he, too, is a man. But if he, too, is lying, his statement: "Every man is a liar," consequently is not true. Whatever way you turn the proposition, the conclusion is a contradiction. Since David himself is a man, it follows that he also is lying; but if he is lying because every man is a liar, his lying is of a different sort.”
Moving away from the liar paradox, I’m sure we’ve all met a very persuasive sophist in our lives. I use the word in the modern, sense. A sophist can be defined as: a person who uses a specious argument for deceiving someone. In a truly modern context, one may call such a person a rhetorician. Such a person may be very skilled at making arguments. Despite the fact that the arguments are linguistically sound, they can often fly in the face of the truth.
A modern example of sophistry has been committed by Jeremy Hunt, the secretary for health. He is, of course, a member of the current Conservative-dominated government. Although the term of sophist is applicable to many politicians, Hunt’s words on the closure of Lewisham Hospital really are a shining example of sophistry. He stated that his plans will deliver “better clinical services”. This is, quite obviously, a dubious statement to make in the light of the facts. Closing a hospital in Lewisham, and then telling people to go to Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich is in no way an improvement of local services. Moreover, it seems like a harrowing example of Orwellian doublethink.
Another notable example of logic being limited is through its perfection against itself. If two opposing arguments are equally logical, what are we to think? If two of The Philosophy Takeaway’s finest philosophers wrote an essay about the ethics of advertising, with one pro-advertising and the other anti, I’m sure both could include equally logical, non-contradictory and sound arguments.
So, if we are, as philosophers, confronted with arguments that are equally logical, how do we proceed in making our decisions? It seems that life experience, intuition and emotion all play a part. Or, more concisely, we use wisdom.
A quote from Pascal -- yes the very same Pascal who (sorry for the pun) coined Pascal’s wager -- is of extreme salience in the context of this article. Pascal once stated, “The heart has reasons of which reason is ignorant.” I do wonder if emotions and logic have to be at odds. Can they not be used to aid each other, instead?
Please don’t think I have been attacking logic, as that has not been my goal. The purpose of this article has been to demonstrate the limits that logic has. If logic, however beautiful and profound, is so limited, should it be put on such a pedestal? To do so, it seems, would be unwise, and, ultimately, against the very essence of philosophy.
By the philosophical Prometheus, Samuel Mack-Poole
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Logic' Issue 45
