Reasoning and Serenity
A Series on Logic in the Life of a Jedi
by: Jerico
Part 1
One way a Jedi can enjoy a serene life is to have his head firmly fixed upon his shoulders. Logic and reasoning skills are with a Jedi at all times, since problems might arise at any time. Indeed, some problems might exist where the Jedi might least expect it, like within the Jedi at this very moment.
Consider this situation. A young man is having a woman over for dinner, and has a friend that has agreed to pick up a nice bottle of whine while the young man makes the last few preparations at home. He want's everything to be perfect (he's a Star Wars geek, after all, so there's no knowing when his next big chance like this will be). After an hour or so, the young man has cleaned every inch of his home, switched the table cloth seven times, and has ensured the symmetry of the table settings down to the last nano-millimeter. The crock pot of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese—I mean, brazed lamb with basil—is bubbling warmly, the music is cued to the young man's favorite Andrea Bocelli number, and he's frozen the neighbor's yippie-rat-dog in a cryogenic freezing chamber for the night. Everything seems perfect, but where is the friend with the wine? He checks the clock. His date will be walking in the door any minute.
Now say you are the young man. You tell people you're “laid back,” that you “take life as it comes to you,” and normally, you do, normally, you're good at that sort of thing, but this is your big night—and you told her you would have wine. She likes a nice cabernet sauvignon, you watched her drink it at the bar the other night. So where the hell is your friend? You try his cell phone, but there's no answer. You send a text, one of those infamous texts in all caps and more exclamation points than actual letters in the message—and then, you send five more. You swear, you're going to kill him. Now you can't run down the street to the liquor store yourself, she might arrive at your home while you're gone, and how horrible would that be? This is your evening with a beautiful woman, and you're about to screw up, big time.
And then, you remember this little article you read on the internet...
The truth is, you, or rather, this young man, has done all that he can do. He's tried calling his friend, and regardless of what is keeping him, the stress he's feeling will not make his friend come by any faster. It feels natural to stand there and stress out, how strange would it be to truly accept the logic of the situation, and look forward to the wonderful time he's about to have with a woman he's fallen for, instead of pacing frantically while anticipating disaster? Wine is just wine, and though, yes, it would make the mac—I mean the lamb more enjoyable, stressing about something like this, beyond our control, is not worth it. If we have no reason to stress, then why would we subject ourselves to stress? The only reason would be because we have not yet settled down and thought things through. By recognizing things that are beyond our control, when indeed they are beyond our control, we can skip the feelings of stress and dread. What will be, will be, right? At the same time, we can avoid painful situations by changing things that indeed within our control, before they get out of control, instead of entertaining the familiar mental dialogue that tells us we are powerless to change things. First, the serene individual is realistic with his environment, and aware of the things he can and cannot alter.
Part 2
Logic
Wasn't there a time that you had felt better about things after just getting your head around something that was bothering you? Getting our thoughts together actually takes practice, believe it or not, but it is hugely important to do so if we are to live without needless anxiety, fear, depression, neurosis, psychosis—you name it. There are a series of cryptic, esoteric formulas for academic, “formal logic” that you might learn about in a university logic course. We're not interested in those here, but we are interested in the mechanism at work, since they can help us get our wits about us when faced with problems.
You actually know the basic idea already: if A=B and B=C, then A must necessarily equal C. Not “maybe” or “sometimes” or “well, if it is true for you,” (gag), but without a doubt, If A=B and B=C, A must always equal C.
“Only a Sith speaks in absolutes!” Obi-wan interrupts.
“Um, Obi-wan?”
“Yes, Jerico?”
“You just made a claim.”
“So?”
“So, your claim, like any claim for that matter, implies an absolute. Specifically in your case that, 'it is absolutely true that only a Sith speaks in absolutes.'”
“Oh, dear.”
“Aye. Let's just assume that George Lukas was off his rocker when he made you say that.”
“That would be appreciated.”
“No problem.”
Anyway, that's the core of all of it, but even a simple as A=B, B=C, A=C might be, we can mess it up. Here's how, so you can avoid them:
Straw Man
First you come to a problem with a solution already in mind (surely, you've never done that before!), you like your solution and it makes you look insightful, so you're sticking to it. The problem is, your solution assumes a circumstance that does not actually exist in the problem. That circumstance that you assume is present, but which is actually not, is called the “Straw Man.” It's not a real man, it's a man made of straw, like the incorrect assumption you made about the problem—get it? Cute, no?
Example:
The supposed connection provided by the US government between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attackers.
Affirming the Consequence
When you make a claim about the world by observing a consequence that would probably result if your claim was true is called, “affirming the consequence.” This can be a tricky one for people, since it follows the logic of scientific thought, and science is supposed to be logically impervious, right? Well, no. You know how scientists say they have to test something over and over again? Why can't they just be good with one test? Your mid-term math grade is dependant on one test, why isn't that good enough for science?
Since science progresses by “affirming the consequence,” scientists have to develop other ways of safeguarding their hypothesis. If they're not confident enough in their past studies, people can get hurt, so they expose their tests to the scientific community so others can go to work on the issue, and see if they can disprove anything the original study had to say about the world. Knowing that, yes, one mid-term math test is probably a bad way of studying your understanding of math, sorry.
Example:
“There is an invisible hat on my head.”
“Really? Do prove it, my good man.”
“Alright, if indeed there was an invisible hat on my head, neither you nor I would be able to see it.”
“I see—er, I mean, I don't see—I mean, yes, I understand what you are saying.”
“Can you see the hat on my head?”
“I cannot.”
“Neither can I.”
“By Jove, good sir, then there must be an invisible hat on your head!”
“But alas, good fellow, feel for yourself, atop my head.”
“Oh dear, there is not an invisible hat on your head after all, and I was so certain of it with your reasoning—by the by, what conditioner do you use?”
Here's an example that you might be familiar with:
“Ben is mad at me.”
“Why do you say that?”
“Because if he was mad at me, he wouldn't say hi to me in the hall, right?”
“I suppose so.”
“Well, this morning, I said hello, and he just passed by me.”
“Maybe he just didn't hear you?”
“Oh...could be.”
OK, one more, this one's my favorite. Let's pull off the gloves for this one, shall we?
“David! David! Guess what?!!”
“Oh, hi Casey, what's up?”
“I just did 'The Secret'!”
“Pardon?”
“'The Secret' is a New Age idea that was made popular by a DVD and book about a year or so back. It was even featured on Oprah! It says that if you ask the universe for something, the universe will give it to you! You can ask for anything!”
“Good Lord, that's great, Casey. What did you ask for?”
“I wanted a new job really, really bad, and so I did what the DVD said and I asked the universe for a new job. I sat and imagined myself already in a new job, over and over again in the evenings. I made a “dream board” by cutting out magazine clippings of pictures to represent me in my new job, and put up newspaper clippings of the job adds that I wanted—and it worked! I got a new job! That proves it!”
“Wow, Casey, you didn't have to job search or anything?”
“Oh, no, of course I had to search for the job.”
“Oh, then I mean you didn't have to apply for a job, like someone just called you for the job you wanted?”
“Um, no, I had to call for the job I wanted.”
“Well, alright, then certainly you didn't have to go to an interview, those are no fun, right?”
“Uh, no, they're not fun—but I had to go to the interview.”
“Oh, I see. Then what, exactly, was it that 'The Secret' did for you, again?”
“Well, it...um...got me the job?...”
“Eh...if you say so, Casey.”
>Part 3
Debate
So you invite a friend over to play Star Wars: Battlefront after you've put in your half hour of meditation for the day, and you're feeling pretty clear-minded. The friend of yours comes over and, before you can unwind your X-Box controllers (you tidy little Jedi, you), your friend makes a proposition about the world that strikes you as false, and the more you think about it, you are privately offended by how false the proposition is. You think this might be worth debating.
And good on you, debate is not really an intellectual warfare between two sides that never agree, it's an exercise in dialectic: the art of finding the truth of any claim, and persuasion: appealing to the other person's sense of reason (their humanity), and that makes it a perfect skill for any would-be Jedi!
There is something to consider before you ignite your lightsaber and charge in for the win on this one, though. There are some audiences that are more stubborn than the rest, and in some situations, no length of debate will win a person over, no matter how skillful you are. That is, unless you have the ability to kidnap them and put them into some sort of brainwashing camp for a year or so—but that's a little twisted and sounds like a scene from A Clockwork Orange. So what is a little struggling intellectual to do? Yup, sorry bud, put away the pretty laser sword and just walk away.
Here are three basic ways of using logic and reasoning, and only one of them actually works. If you are able to privately identify others as one or another, you can save yourself a lot of headache and maintain a good relationship by avoiding unneeded conflict. (Ah, how perceptive!)
The Dogmatist
The key phrase to understanding The Dogmatist is “privileged precedence.” That is to say, The Dogmatist takes his statements and assumes that they are better than yours from the very start, even though he has no way of demonstrating that they actual have “precedence” at all, therefore giving his arguments an unreasonable “privilege.” Get it? Groovy. It normally takes the form of “I'm right, because I said so,” or “I'm right, because this book says so.”
The reasons for giving their own opinions “privileged precedence” are wide-ranging, and not worth your concern unless you're working as a professional councilor or psychologist. What's important is to learn to identify dogmatic people and understand that they are not going to let you pry their fingers from their convictions, no matter how reasonable you are, or how well you demonstrate your case (ignoring the brain-wash camp).
The Extreme Skeptic
This one is a goofy guy, and thankfully none too common anymore. The Extreme Skeptic says, simply, “there is no such thing as truth.” You normally find these creatures scratching about in the safety of the Ivory Towers of Academia (universities—go figure). If you ever meet one that makes such a claim, just ask, “Really? Is that true?” and their head will explode.
The Critical Thinker
The Critical Thinker makes propositions about the world, and believes whole-heartedly that he is correct, but there is yet something special about him. The Critical Thinker acknowledges that, no matter how certain he is, no matter how many debates he might win, there is a very real chance that, in the end, he might be wrong. Pretty damn humble, no? Not only is it humble, but it's the only proclamation that, of which, one can be absolutely certain.
I'll let you decide which is best suited for a Jedi, O perceptive one!
The Art of Argument
Argument is the act of reasoning, not beating each other about the head and shoulders with anything you can lay your hands on. So a good argument demonstrates good reasoning. In a formal debate, with a third-party judge, if you can argue your case better than your opponent, you will win. Yay! Too bad we can't pull out a third-party judge from our back pocket when we are in disagreement with our friends, classmates, coworkers, teachers, congressmen, boss, dog, post man, lunch lady, president, etc. etc.; we'll just have to make due without one most of the time.
The Syllogism
Did you hear that? Oh boy, oh boy—that, just now, when you read that last title. Did you hear it? It was a choir of angels. They were singing for you. Did you hear them? Here, listen:
The Syllogism
Did you hear them this time? Excellent! Are you inspired? You should be!
Now, because we don't need to hear angels every time we use the word in the following, I'll just call it “the most important thing to the student of reason.” That will trick the angels and they'll go back to...whatever angels do when their not waiting for someone to say “Syllogism.”...oops.
“The most important thing to the student of reason” was demonstrated by Aristotle (the student of Plato) by using Socrates (the teacher of Plato) as the subject of his demonstration. Observe, Jedi!
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
OK, quick show of hands, who saw this and thought, “Um, ya, duh.”
Consider its parts:
First Premise: All men are mortal.
Second Premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
The truth of the matter is the conclusion was probably the first thing in the arguer's mind, since that's how things normally go, isn't it? You hear a claim about something, a conclusion, and you want to see if it's true or not by questioning its foundation: its premises (Gasp! That is dialectic! By God, you can be taught!). Likewise, you might believe something, a conclusion, and you want to defend yourself when being questioned by another by demonstrating the foundations of your belief. Here's how it might look like in real life:
Obi-wan: “Padme is mortal.”
Anakin: “Why?”
Obi-wan: “Because she is a woman.”
Anakin: “What has that got to do with anything?”
Obi-wan: “All women are mortal.”
Aanakin: “We shall see about that...” (maniacal laughter)
Obi-wan: (rolls his eyes)
“The most important thing to the student of reason” is a bit backwards here, yes? And the first step towards the first premise is initiated by the question, “Why?” and then the second question, “What has that got to do with anything?” We could also ask, “Why is that important to your claim?” or simply, “So what?” (or even, “Whachutalkn'bout Willis???” if you want to be extra cool.)
Ever heard how you're supposed to question everything? Take a look, this is how you do it.
1. Consider their claim
2. Ask, “Why?” (God bless the word)
-
If the response pulls in a new term (and it should), like “woman” in the Padme example, then ask, in one way or another, “so what?”
-
Their answer should be the first premise of their argument: like, “All women are mortal.” in the earlier example. We know it's the first premise because there are no new terms, and this last statement effectively ties the previous two statements together (A=C).
Behold the whole lovely thing is motion:
Jerico: “Abortion is immoral.”
You: “Um, ok, why?”
You: “So, what?”
Jerico: “Abortion is the intentional destruction of innocent life.”
Want more? Of course you do, since a discussion like this would likely not stop there, more is warranted. For example:
You: “What if the woman's life was threatened by the pregnancy?”
Jerico: “Then the woman's life would be threatened by the pregnancy.”
You: “Huh?”
Jerico: “You asked a 'what if' question. They are worthless. What you meant to do was make a claim concerning the woman's right to protect herself, right?”
You: “Oh, yeah.”
Jerico: “Then have at it, chief.”
You: “Alright. Abortion in self defense is moral.”
Jerico: “Why?”
You: “It is moral to destroy a threat.”
Jerico: “So, what?”
You: “Abortion in self defense is destroying a threat.”
Jerico: “Alright, I don't buy it.”
You: “Huh?”
Jerico: “Look: I ask you, is it moral to destroy a person who brings unintentional threat? For example, would it be moral for me to destroy you if you were driving me to the store, and you hit a patch of ice, and we slid over into the next lane?”
You: “You mean kill me? Of course not.”
Jerico: “Right. Of course not. Is the unborn baby bringing unintentional threat to its mother, in your example?”
You: “Damn, I see where this is going...yes.”
Jerico: “Then your argument, 'abortion in self defense is moral,' is false.”
You: “Alright, I see what you are saying, but I had all the parts of the syllogism you told me to have.”
(Chior of angels)
You: “Um, oops. I mean I had all the parts of 'the most important thing to the student of reason' you told me to have.”
Jerico: “You cast a valid form: you had all the right parts, but you filled those parts with ideas that yielded false conclusions. It happens all the time. That's the power of dialectic. It will always find the holes in an argument when used correctly. Be mindful of such, and you won't go astray.”
Part IV...closing remarks
Closing Remarks
This series covered a lot of ideas. Please take your time in reviewing the material, and leave us a post on the board if you have any questions. The world is a big place, Jedi, and the more you learn about logic, the less you'll find it being used in this big scary world of ours. It's up to you to make that change. Logic isn't about robes and lightsabers, it's about a real skill that can bring serenity to your life, and to the lives of those around you. In the right hands, a good argument can help settle disputes, mend relationships, solve problems, and discover truth in ambiguous times. It gains its power from our humanity, and influences others by appealing to their humanity. Until we figure out how to make laser swords and move objects with nothing by our mind, logic is the greatest skill a Jedi Realist can have.
In parting, I leave you with this:
All you will ever have is this moment, Jedi, and all you will ever need is your own effort. Remember that. Go get 'em, tiger.
~Jerico, Sanctuary Philosopher
This article reposted with permission by JediSanctuary.org