Logic, Metaphysics, Philosophy

Logic: The Art of Reason

by Dave Seng

Socrates famously said that the unexamined life is not worth living. It could equally be said that the unexamined idea is not worth having. How can one know, however, whether or not an idea is worth having or if one should accept it as true? Logic is the tool philosophers (and everyone, really) use to discern good ideas from bad ones and true statements from false ones.

It is often said that logic is the primary tool of the philosopher. But why has it been given such a status? Why has logic been called the “key” to philosophizing? In our last post, we discovered that one way philosophy is different from other fields is its development and utilization of logic, or more simply, the art of correct reasoning. This essay will not go into all the ways reasoning can go wrong, such as formal and informal fallacies. I’ll post some good texts that will help one out with those below. Instead, we will examine why one might want to reason correctly to begin with.

Philosophy sets itself apart from other fields because it starts with the basic assumptions of correct reasoning. Everyone uses these basic laws of thought without even realizing it or having special training in philosophy. There are three basic laws of correct reasoning and self-evident features of all reality. They are:

1. The Law of Noncontradiction: Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.

2. The Law of Excluded Middle: Something either is or is not.

3. The Law of Identity: Something is what it is.

It is important to realize that these laws are absolutely necessary for any coherent thought or communication of any kind. Without these laws, communication would collapse into incoherence and chaos. Furthermore, notice that these laws have both metaphysical and epistemological ramifications. They are metaphysical in nature because they indicate what can or can not be. They lay out the basic foundation (what Aristotle calls “first-principles”) or starting points for understanding anything that is. As for epistemology (how we know what we know), these laws show us what can or can not be true. A statement can not be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. A cat is what it is (the Law of Identity). When reasoning correctly, it is always important to keep in mind that truth is what corresponds to reality. It is impossible to reject one of these laws and write a coherent sentence. Note that the qualifying phrase for the Law of Noncontradiction, “at the same time and in the same respect” is significant. A chair could be red or yellow at different times but it can not both be and not be (anything) at the same time and in the same respect—it can not be four-legged and not four-legged at the same time.

It is important to realize that these laws demand no other foundation or principles in order to be true because they are the first and most basic laws of reason. No further proof is needed for their acceptance. Not everything needs to be proved to be true. Aristotle called these the “first principles” of all reality and logic. In fact, it was the Law of Noncontradiction that Aristotle was speaking of when he said that it was the mark of an uneducated person not to realize that some things cannot be proved, otherwise nothing could be proved. According to Aristotle,

“Some, indeed, demand to have the law proved, but this is because they lack education; for it shows lack of education not to know of what we should require proof, and of what we should not. For it is quite impossible that everything should have a proof; the process would go on to infinity, so that there would be no proof” (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1006a).

These three laws are simply “anchors” or foundational “first principles” for all human communication and reasoning. Without them, we would simply fall into intellectual confusion and disarray. It really should not worry anyone that these principles are not provable. The principles and axioms of geometry are not demonstrable but it would be impossible to write a geometric proof without them. In the final analysis, all our basic rules of thought and logic have a metaphysical cast to them.

There are two aspects to correct reasoning. Existence (Being) itself is the touchstone for human thought and experience. We learn crucial things about the world through our senses. After all, our senses allow us to experience external reality. Through the repeated data our senses provide to the mind, we learn the essential character of things. Take, for example, the conductivity of gold. By empirical observation, we find that gold is an excellent metal for conducting electricity. We can correctly conclude that one of the essential properties (what Aristotle would call potencies) of gold is to be an electrical conductor. The process of exploring reality and drawing conclusions from sense experience is called induction. Induction is reasoning which attempts to reach a conclusion concerning all the members of a class after inspection of only some of them. If we notice that all the crows we have come across are black, it is valid to conclude that the next one we see will be black. If we plant an acorn, and nothing prohibits it from growing, it is reasonable to think an oak tree will grow. Induction is an empirical process. Induction, however, does not mean we can know and understand things with absolute certainty. It is simply a process that allows for predicting things to a very high degree of probability and provides the basis for the common sense understanding that barring impurities, gold will conduct electricity and if properly cared for, an oak tree will grow from an acorn.

Induction helps us to know the essence of things and speaks to the fact that we do not have to examine every single member of a class in order to come to a valid conclusion. We know that when we discover something it has an essential nature. We do not have to examine every single human to find out that humans are mortal. Similarly, we understand that humans have rational cognitive abilities, an essential feature of being human, but it is not necessary to interview every human in order to discover this feature of humanity. This process is called abstraction. Through empirical observation, humans discover features and properties of the particular class of the thing being examined and detect the essential nature of that thing. The essence of a thing is simply that which makes something the kind of thing it is. In the case of humans, we learn that mortality and rationality (among others) are essential universal features of what it means to be human.

Induction is a fascinating two-way street. In order to test our inductions, we have to refer back to empirical facts and observation. This reverse engineering process where we return from the level of abstraction and universal essence to the level of the senses is an impart part of induction. This is because being and essence are always combined.

The second way we know things is called deduction. This form of reasoning is also based on the three laws of thought discussed above. Deductive reasoning is based on the self-evident principles of all reality (Being) such as the Law of Noncontradiction. Deduction can start from more complex judgments whose truth has been proved and moves to develop further conclusions from these previously known truths or, at other times, simply resolves complex judgments into more basic principles. With this form of thinking, the conclusion of an argument follows by logical necessity from the premises. In other words, when it comes to deductive reasoning, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true also. With deductive reasoning, we start with a universal principle (true for everyone everywhere) and reach a particular conclusion (what is true for a particular thing or individual). The famous example is:

All humans are mortal (universal proposition)

Socrates is a human

Therefore, Socrates is mortal (particular proposition, conclusion)

This kind of deductive reasoning is also called syllogistic reasoning meaning to consider certain propositions together. The conclusion of the deductive argument must follow by necessity due to the logical entailment or implication of the propositions.

The art of reasoning is really about the human desire and ability to discover truth. Logic is simply the laws of thought which help us to learn whether or not we have correctly formulated inductions or if we have moved from one syllogistic set of propositions to another accurately. It is, of course, possible to reason from the wrong starting point or be mistaken about the truth of our basic premises. Formal logic is concerned with right reasoning but not always with the truthfulness of our reasoning. It is more important to discover how our reasoning corresponds to reality and is, therefore, true.

Further reading:

John Burbidge. Within Reason: A Guide to Non-Deductive Reasoning. Kenmore, N.Y.: Broadview press, 1990.

Irving M. Copi. Introduction to Logic. Fourteenth ed. Routledge, 2010.

Patrick Hurley. A Concise Introduction to Logic. Twelfth ed. Cengage Learning, 2014

Education, Ethics, Philosophy, Uncategorized

Is Philosophy Everyone’s Business?

by Dave Seng

Mortimer Adler, was correct when he made the statement “philosophy is everyone’s business” because philosophy really is something everyone engages in whether they realize it or not. Have you ever shared your opinion and ideas with someone? Did you present and defend the reasons for those ideas? If so, you have engaged in philosophical reflection. Even without special training, it seems we all have something to say about the proper role of the government in our lives, justice and fairness in our economic system, and whether or not a certain activity or behavior is morally correct.

For example, we might read on a news site of a man in a coma or permanent vegetative state whose family doctor ordered him to be euthanized. We read further that some family members support this decision while others do not. Then, in the comments and posts that inevitably come, controversy rages about whether or not the physician’s action was morally right or wrong. Even if we do not engage in the discussion, we nonetheless form ideas and opinions of our own on the question.

If we look carefully, we begin to notice that those who agree or disagree with the doctor’s action give reasons for their position. When challenged, they give further considerations for the reasons which they think validates their position. Sometimes, we will even see thoughtful people clarify or modify their position when opponents point out inconsistencies or errors of exaggeration which is also an important part of philosophical reflection. Much of philosophy is simply sharpening one’s position through careful and thoughtful dialogue. When people collect themselves around their basic reasons for their position and appeal to their evidence for it, they have begun the process of philosophy. In this case, we see the development of a moral philosophy. Moral philosophy is simply discovering and stating the reasons why an action is right or wrong.

Of course, we know of other controversies. Every day we hear of issues surrounding how we should best educate our children, or what constitutes good or bad art, or what makes a law just? When we engage in these issues, we are immediately developing a philosophy of education, a philosophy of art, or philosophy of law. When it really comes down to it, we all have a philosophy of something. The question arises, however, whether or not our given theory or philosophy is a good one or worthy to be accepted as true. As rational and thoughtful individuals we should always reflect and think about the reasons why we hold something to be true, an idea which Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle believed was the beginning of wisdom (according to classical philosophy, wisdom is the highest human good). Nonetheless, as we question whether or not our philosophical position on something is good or true, we immediately discover the value of logic and the rules for valid thinking which is a topic I will discuss soon in a following post. For now, it is important to understand that just as everyone engages in philosophy, everyone engages in logical reasoning whether or not it is done well. Philosophy is indeed everyone’s business.

Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Resources, Uncategorized

Resource: The Quantum Thomist

by Dave Seng
Photo courtesy of Nathan Perkins

A large part of this blog seeks to explore the intersection of physics and metaphysics from the standpoint of classical philosophy (I am not a physicist). Metaphysics is the study or theory of reality — what the ancient and medieval philosophers called Being. The questions metaphysics seek to explore are: What is reality? What can be counted as real? Are there things such as numbers, mathematics, or the logical axioms and propositions of all human reasoning that are not strictly empirical? In what ways do the physical laws and rules of logic point to extra-empirical, supernatural, or a transcendent reality?

Lately, I’ve been reading through this website called The Quantum Thomist by Dr. Nigel Cundy. If you are interested in how the study of physics points to metaphysics and transcendent reality, read this site. Dr. Cundy is a physicist who understands the connection between physics and metaphysics. I hope you enjoy it.

Philosophy

What is Philosophy?

by Dave Seng
Photo courtesy of Nate Seng

Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and the philosopher begins in wonder.

Plato, Theaetetus, 155

It is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at the first began to philosophize.

Aristotle, Metaphysics, I, 2.

It is sometimes claimed that the borderlines between philosophy and all other disciplines are very blurred. After all, what was known in the ancient and medieval worlds as “natural philosophy” is now in the modern era simply called science. This is partly because what the ancient philosophers asked about the natural world has been answered through the course of time. In other words, philosophers set up the questions and through empiricism, trial and error, and eventually, the scientific method, those interested in questions about physical nature found answers. Does this mean, however, that science has discovered all the questions important to human existence? Furthermore, it is claimed that philosophy investigates the great questions of life—but doesn’t art, literature, music, and history explore the great questions of life also? After all, other disciplines are interested in these questions, so what makes philosophy unique? What is philosophy then, and why is it still considered an important and unique field of inquiry, at least for some?

Whenever one begins a study of something it is always best to begin with the name of the thing itself. This will also help us understand how the field of philosophy is set apart from other disciplines. The word “philosophy” comes from the Greek word which means “the love of wisdom.” It is a combination of the Greek words “philia” (love) and “sophia” (wisdom). It is said that the ancient philosopher Pythagoras (about 600 B.C.) was the first to use the term “philosopher” and likened philosophers—pursuers of wisdom—to spectators at ancient games:

“…when Leon the tyrant of Philius asked him who he was, he said, “A philosopher,” and that he compared life to the Great Games, where some went to compete for the prize and others went with wares to sell, but the best as spectators; for similarly, in life, some grow up with servile natures, greedy for fame and gain, but the philosopher seeks for truth.”1 

Pythagoras certainly captures the spirit of the philosophical enterprise as one who seeks wisdom and truth. But what can we know about this project of discovering and loving wisdom? The first philosophers who left us a large body of work which we would now call philosophy were the ancient Greek thinkers, Plato and Aristotle. Plato and Aristotle held that philosophy—the love and pursuit of wisdom begins with the human propensity to wonder. After all, it is due to wonder that humans explore their world, discover new things, and create works of art, culture, and technology. In the ancient Greek world, however, sophia (wisdom) came to be known as the quest for the first principles of the world in which we live. As discoveries were made and conclusions were drawn, it became apparent that not all kinds of answers were the same. The inquiry into what a thing is, for example, is very different from the question of how to do something. Aristotle was the first to recognize that particular fields of investigation had to be separated out into geometry, biology, physics, and psychology (to name a few) because the kinds of questions each field seeks answers to has uniquely different starting points and methods. As Aristotle explains in his Metaphysics, wisdom is knowledge about the first principles and causes of the universe and is different from the arts of production and other fields. Ultimately, the term wisdom became reserved for the inquiry into the first principles of all reality. Philosophers seek the wisdom of the fundamental reality of things, where things come from, why there is anything at all, the truth or falsity of moral claims and whether or not humans can genuinely know anything, and one of the ultimate questions of all, is there a God or creator of the universe? These are among the greatest questions central to all of human experience. Philosophy seeks answers to the most general questions of existence. These questions have been the pursuit of humankind for many centuries, going as far back as to the beginning of written language and possibly further.

It should be clear by now that philosophy is a uniquely human enterprise. The philosopher Ed Miller defines philosophy as the attempt to think rationally and critically about the most important questions. I would add two words to the last sentence—of life. I am not an existentialist but philosophy, if it is going to be meaningful and important, needs to reflect on the nature, significance, and purpose of human existence and mankind’s place in the world. That is why Socrates said at his trial, “the unexamined life is not worth living for a man.” Humans are the only species that create libraries, schools, and hospitals. Cephalopods might have the most advanced brains and nervous systems of the animal kingdom, but they do not write books, program computers, or engage in rational self-reflection. The unexamined life is perfectly fine for a squid or cat but humans have the unique ability to engage in discovering truth through evidence, examination, reasoned evaluation and thoughtful analysis. The impulse to apply reason and to seek understanding, knowledge, and wisdom are uniquely human traits. It is always a tragedy when someone rejects their rationality or declines to develop their rational potential. That is why the UNCF correctly adopted the motto, “a mind is a terrible thing to waste.” Only humans have intellectual capacities. Philosophy seeks to understand the meaning, purpose, and significance of all fields and human inquiry.

Philosophy then, seeks to develop human potential through logic, the formulation and study of the principles of correct reasoning, and is one way it is different from other fields. It is true, that all other fields use logical reasoning in one way or another but in these cases it is used secondarily. Other fields, such as science and history are primarily empirical. It is philosophy, however, which lays out the principles and axioms that make deduction, inference, and valid conclusions possible to begin with. A rational argument is the attempt to show something to be true, well-founded, and coherent, by providing evidence for it. Philosophers examine the truth or falsity of the premises of an argument and what it means to come to a valid conclusion. Philosophy examines the nature of explanation. The laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middle are philosophical tools that the historian, scientist, and even the novelist have to assume and rely on to make their work comprehensible and conceptually coherent. Done appropriately, it is logic that provides the historian and scientist their methodology. The philosopher examines the principles which make logical and rational argumentation possible. Logic is simply a tool that anyone can use to sharpen their thinking through correct reasoning. Unlike history and the empirical sciences that use uniquely physical investigative methods, philosophy is thinking and inquiring about the ultimate questions of life through rational inquiry, logic, and argumentation alone. You will never find a philosopher researching the nature of moral values in a chemistry lab.

As we have seen, the content and methodology of philosophy are what makes it different from other fields. Philosophy centers itself on the great questions of life, questions which humans have been searching for answers to for thousands of years—moral questions, questions about the nature of reality, and what it means to be authentically human in what seems to be a physical universe. When human beings increase and develop their understanding of these great questions, they and their culture will ripen into what is most distinctively human.

1Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VII, 8, tr. R.D. Hicks (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1925), II.