Logic and Language

Gerard Casey, professor at University College Dublin and at Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom, speaks on two views of logic's relation to language. There are those who believe that language must conform to the boundaries of logic, and those that believe that logic must cede to language when it is "appropriate". To hear about that and receive a free lesson in logic go here.

I find that anyone who wants logic to cede to language misunderstands the human role. There are immovable bylaws that exist independently of humans. This causes problems for relativists who want to  make up their own rules for every aspect of life. In thinking that they can evade these truths, they wallow in the filth of contradiction. No matter how edgy, unique, spiritual, down to earth or post-modern you are, arithmetic and geometry are true. 9 x 8 = 72. The whole is greater than the part. These should not be controversial claims, but there are those who do not believe in objective truth. These statements unequivocally rebuke those anathema to the truth. Whether humans flourish or perish, these truths reign will not end.

Radio station KPCC 89.3 has a slogan plastered on billboards in Los Angeles. It reads "Ideas...not ideology". Statements such as this indicate a relativist worldview, that is not comfortable swallowing the reality of objective truth. The dictionary says that ideology is "the body of belief that guides an individual, social movement, institution or large group". The point they are trying to make is that those who seek to apply an axiom to guide their views are blinded by that axiom. To KPCC and those of like minds, each issue should be analyzed contextually and there is no one axiom that is applicable to every issue. Therefore solutions to problems should be drawn from eclectic sources. This is as charitable a presentation as I believe I can give, and perhaps it is in a more succinct fashion than they could present their own thoughts.

They say that there should not be a body of belief that guides an individual, or an axiom that one believes in. The problem is that KPCC has an axiom that they are applying in this advertisement. Their axiom states that no axioms should be followed. This is a contradiction. KPCC errs in trying to bolster their argument through use of powerful rhetoric. It might sound aesthetically pleasing to say ideas, not ideology, but that does not make the proposition factual. Their conclusion is not entirely unpromising. Here is my effort to remedy their garbling. Studying viewpoints that are not your own may benefit intellectual discourse, and quicken our finding of solutions to problems.

Philosopher of religion Ronald Nash, God bless his soul, wrote a book that systematically disassembles and disintegrates arguments for world-views that fail to pass the test of logic. It is appropriately entitled "Life's Ultimate Questions". If you are interested in what views host contradictions, then I implore your to read his book. Until then let us continue our dissection and sewing up of false statements.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, everything in moderation. But I say unto you, that this aphorism faces the same contradiction we saw before. Self-reflexive absurdity. When applying the aphorism to itself the absurdity of its claim becomes apparent. This ladies and gentlemen is a reductio ad absurdum. If everything is to be taken in moderation, then we must take this claim in moderation as well. Here in lies the contradiction. When taking the aphorism to its extremity we are both breaking and following it. And now the remedy. But I say unto you, that certain situations require an application of moderation. Now the statement has less rhetorical power, but it is not contradictory.

It hath been said, things are never as they seem. If things are never as they seem, then this statement is not as it seems. This double negative leads us to the conclusion that things are as they seem. To say that both are correct in the same time and place is to spout a contradiction. After such a bloodied incision I must remove the venomous contradiction and sew the argument up. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall be appeared to, can be deceived by said seeming.

Again, ye hath heard that it hath been said by them of old time, in galaxies far, far away, only sith deal in absolutes. These words of George Lucas were spoken by the character Obi-wan Kenobi, a supposed jedi. Given his proclivity to jediness this statement is self-reflexively absurd. To say that solely sith view the world in axioms, is axiomatic. This would lead to the conclusion of Kenobi's sithitude. Jediness and sithitude being contrary in nature, this axiom is a contradiction. Fortunately surgery is still an option on the table. But I say unto you, sometimes picking a middle ground on issues may benefit you, Anakin. Or put differently "studying viewpoints that are not your own may benefit intellectual discourse, and speed up our finding of solutions to problems."

Two words,
two cents,
truth matters.

Post Scriptum: I don't expect every link I provide to be read by each reader, but "Life's Ultimate Questions" is critical to critical understanding. Most links I provide are free learning resources, but the link to Nash's book is not. It is however, well worth the cost. The most impressive part of this work is its accessibility to the lay reader. It is used as an introductory book to philosophy, and its lucidity helped push me along my journey of scholastic rigor.