Reality & Logic: Are They Illusions?

By Robert Danton

This book by Professor Robert Danton overturns the conventional wisdom on reality and logic and has much to offer intellectually. Professor Danton is the author of a number of books on philosophy and has published some important papers related to logic.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Robert Danton
• Release date: Jul 17, 2019
• ISBN: 9781393648048

Book preview

1  LOGIC

A mathematician plays with logic through the use of symbols, while a philosopher plays with logic through the medium of words.

In order that logic can function, there should be facts, which are knowledge derived from experience, or empirical knowledge. These facts form the premises or statements upon which a new premise or statement can be formed. This act of deriving a new premise or statement from given premises or statements is the act of reasoning or the act of logical thinking. There are systems of logic developed by philosophers, such as, e.g., Aristotle, hence, Aristotelian Logic. These systems set up the types of premises which can be derived through logical thinking. They also expose the importance of language or symbols in logical thinking. Ludwig Wittgenstein, the Danish philosopher, had in his Tractacus, acclaimed for language and symbols great importance in logic, so had Russell, the British philosopher.

Logic is based on intuition, the sixth sense. What are logical, from an objective point of view, should be universally true, i.e., other people with enough of common sense should agree that such and such a thing is logical in order to acclaim to that thing its logic or sense. Anything that cannot be universally agreed upon should hence be illogical or nonsensical. This brings about a problem. If, e.g., you are one of those original thinkers who believe that something is logical, but your fellowmen fail to agree with you because they are too stupid, would you hesitate to claim that it is logical? It is understandable that you would start doubting its logic. But if you could find another human being who could agree with you, you most probably would not doubt its logic. This statement of the author is based on intuition like the logic he is discussing; it is subject to the benefit of the reader’s doubt. The author is here trying to philosophize, to be logical, using his intuition, his sixth sense, as a result. It can be said that nothing is absolutely certain; nobody should be so certain that he is always right, that he is always logical, if to be right is to be logical. Here is a witticism: It is certainly certain that nothing is absolutely certain. (This statement appears self-contradictory.)

Look at the five senses we possess, viz., sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. The various stimuli that give rise to each of these sensations produce in the body impulses which travel to the brain, producing impressions there, and it is these impressions which are the senses so derived. But can we always trust our senses, our body or our brain upon which impulses act? This is the question that is difficult to answer. If we can always trust our senses, why? If not, why? Certainly trust, and distrust, are based on intuition. What is our intuition based on? How can we be certain that our intuition does not fail us? How can we be certain that our logic, which is based on our intuition, is reliable?

2  REALITY AND LOGIC

What is logic? And, what is reality? To some, these two are one and the same; what is logical is real, i.e., logic is real. But, what is real need not be logical, e.g., the ideas of foolish, illogical people are real and could have far-reaching, harmful effects on society despite their lack of logic.

To know what the two terms, logic and reality, imply, it would be appropriate to state what they mean. Logic could be regarded as the beauty of ideas or concepts. Logical ideas or concepts give some kind of pleasure to the mind which conceives them, a pleasure which is somewhat akin to the pleasure that one gets from viewing a beautiful piece of art, for example. This kind of pleasure is apparently universal; in other words, the minds which could understand the ideas or concepts would experience this feeling. One may wonder: What is the importance of logic? It is hardly worth the while for logical ideas or concepts to be able to invoke in intelligent minds just the feeling: Aha! These ideas sound great! As we know, logic has utilitarian value. It is an aid to practically every aspect of our life, from the not so serious side like play to the more serious aspect such as work. The successful exercise of logical reasoning would result in achievements which make a person happy. With the proper use of logic or logical reasoning, one could arrive at more ideas or conclusions, with which one could make the most appropriate decisions or take the most appropriate actions which could bring the desired result. In other words, logic is the means to an end. Reality refers to the actual state of things, and, in the case here, the actual state of logic. However, true logic, which could be regarded as valid common sense, may not exist, may not be real, sometimes, but may only be an illusion, a wrong impression.

Would the most logical person be the person most capable of achieving success in any field he chooses? In reality, this may not be so. In a field of activity involving straight, objective, logical reasoning, such as philosophy, mathematics or science, efficiency in logical reasoning could carry a person far. But, in a field of activity especially involved in dealing with other people, who may not be that logical, e.g., in business and politics, the employment of logical reasoning may not prove so fruitful. In such activities, which have a social element, wherein the ability to play with the moods and emotions of the other party or parties concerned is relatively important, the self-cultivation of certain personal characteristics such as, e.g., stylishness of dress, linguistic style, the projection of an impressive personal image, et al., may play a far more important role than an impressive intellect. This is a reality of life and it is no surprise that many a person with a brilliant intellect fails in the social sphere due to a lack of such personal advantages.

Some intellectuals seem to think that really logical reasoning could be employed to influence or persuade anyone. This is a misconception. Consider this. In a society of fools would the person of genius be looked upon with esteem for his genius? It would not be surprising here that the greatest fool would be held with the highest esteem by his fellow-fools. It could hence be concluded that the person with the most logical intellect should avoid dealing with people lacking with logic as much as possible  -  he should seek out like-minded people to do business with, if his logical reasoning were to be appreciated, accepted and utilized for a fruitful end. Certainly, one should not attempt to teach another person higher calculus if the latter could not even master elementary algebra! In certain situations, where the party or parties concerned lack the brain-power or the power of reasoning, it would be illogical, pointless, to rely on the power of logic. This is especially so when the emotions of the parties concerned run high, for emotion is the anti-thesis of logical thinking.

How could a person with the most logical of minds be able to co-exist amicably with his rather average fellowmen? How could brilliance go hand-in-hand with the mediocre and the not that logical? It would not be much of a contradiction to state that, in this instance, it is stupid to be brilliant, it would be brilliant to be stupid, to act stupid. The brilliant guy, if he were practical, shrewd and adaptable, should be able to hide his brilliance and act ordinary, or even the fool if the situation warranted it. However, not all brilliant people possess the qualities of practical-ness, shrewdness and adaptableness  -  in this instance, avoidance of the mediocrities and the inferior intellects may be the best solution since the brilliant person is unable to blend with them and gain acceptance by them. To be practical, shrewd and adaptable requires some degree of low animal cunning, pettiness of mind and shamelessness (or, possession of a thick skin)  -  bluff and showy-ness, something which a person of honor would generally not care for, are normally required. 

The definition and interpretation of logic could be fuzzy, vague. Some may find it difficult to describe logic, e.g., someone may describe it as a sensation that something seems right, seems to make sense. This will be a subjective feeling, and logic, if it is just a subjective feeling, seems more like an opinion than a statement of truth. Some may regard logic as common sense, a kind of intuitive feeling which will be felt by all rational people when encountering certain statements, premises or ideas. A better definition of logic, which will make logic appear less controversial is, probably, a set of ideas or reasoning which enables a person to tell or forecast the outcome of a certain set of events. For example, we notice that Mr. A is angry and unhappy. We know that Mr. B is personally disliked by Mr. A. If Mr. B now approaches Mr. A for a small loan of, say, $100.00, will he be able to obtain the loan? A logical person will probably conclude that Mr. B will not obtain the loan. His logic will be practically confirmed to be correct if Mr. B were seen trying to get the loan and was turned down. If, on the other hand, Mr. B managed to secure the loan, then the logic of the person’s conclusion will be taken to be incorrect. This kind of experimental proof, or proof by results, will be the least controversial proof of the soundness or validity of a logic, and the most practical. A further example should demonstrate this point to perfection. Logic concludes that if Rod A is longer than Rod B and Rod B is longer than Rod C, then Rod A will be longer than Rod C. How do we prove the absolute soundness of this logic, without causing any controversies? Well, by very simply conducting an experiment, by bringing together three rods of different lengths, naming the rods A, B and C according to the given premises and finally bringing together Rods A and C, placing them side by side and comparing their respective lengths. Unless one is blind or has no eye-sight, one could hence see with one’s very own eyes that Rod A will be indeed longer than Rod C, and there will not be any doubt or controversy about this inevitable fact. The result of this experiment will indubitably prove that the conclusion, Rod A is longer than Rod C, is logical and correct.

The problem will only arise when we apply logic to the more abstract concepts which have little to do with practicability or reality, especially concepts concerning objects which are intangible, objects which cannot be experimented with. Consider the following example. Book A is more difficult to read than Book B. Therefore, more people will prefer Book B to Book A. It is very difficult to prove or confirm the soundness of this logical reasoning, as levels of reading ability and personal likes and dislikes are very difficult to measure or gauge (unlike the above-mentioned measurable rods of varying lengths), the former will depend on one’s command of the language, education and intelligence while the latter will depend on one’s culture, and family and social background.

It seems that logic has often been over-rated. As mentioned earlier, the sense of logic is a kind of intuitive feeling that something seems right or correct. Often this sense of logic could be validated by the connectedness of real, tangible objects. Logic involving intangible objects, objects which could not be seen or observed, could be very abstruse and difficult to validate. It is probably correct to say that it is better to arrive at the truth through the utilization of pure intuition, rather than logic (which is dependent on or a product of the intuition). If we could find a shorter, more efficient way of arriving at the truths, we should do so.

The exercise of logical reasoning in human affairs appears to be a rather arbitrary one. What is logical to one person might not be regarded so by another person, though there is much consensus amongst people in many instances in logical thinking; in other words, many people could be found to share the same logical thoughts regarding some particular matters, but the consensus might not be there where controversial matters are concerned.

Logical reasoning could be fallacious. For example, in science and economics, the experts study phenomena and observe patterns, and, on the basis of these patterns, they forecast or predict future events, e.g., the arrival of comets and the timing of share price increase or decrease. The logical mind here makes the assumption that all natural/economic phenomena have a pattern, and once the pattern is noted, the timing of the recurrence of these same phenomena could be predicted. What is the logical basis of this assumption? The second assumption is that this pattern does not change with time. Here again, what is the logical basis of this assumption? However, one should not discount the possibility that this said pattern changes with time. So, holding the assumption that an observed pattern remains the same in the future might not be logical. Taking an analogy here to illustrate this point, should we assume that an apparently kind person who would not even kill an ant is incapable of committing a murder? There had been instances whereby apparent paragons of virtue and high morals committed serious crimes, and all those who knew him were greatly surprised or shocked. A logical thought based on a fallacious assumption should not be regarded as logical, though for practical purposes it might be allowed (we should only allow ourselves the luxury of such a logical thought by carefully taking note that the assumption upon which it is based is only tentative).

Logic could be regarded as the system of rules for thinking. Some of these rules could be highly specialized and arcane while others could be simple. We humans have created rules and procedures for practically everything under the sun, e.g., rules for behaving in our society, which we call etiquette, rules for sports and games, e.g., rules for soccer and chess, rules or laws for preventing criminal behavior and disciplining and punishing criminals, rules for mathematical computations, rules for driving, et al. Of course, the rules for thinking, viz., logic, are apparently also one of the many creations of the human intellect, though many might believe that logic is the gift of the Divine. Logic could also be regarded as the guide for human action and should be based objectively on facts if it were to serve any useful purpose. The problem appears to be not so much in having a logical mind, but, rather in having a truly objective mind, for how good is a logical thought if it is based on fallacious or subjective assumptions? Such a logical thought would be the incorrect thought, which would not bring about the desired outcome or result (except perhaps by fluke). As mentioned earlier, a logical thought should lead to a desired result or a predicted outcome. If it does not do so, then by this criterion, the logic of the thought is dubious.

There seems to be