Why do people fear logic?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

So in some of my college courses, I exercise a logic that I’ve fostered over years of intensive philosophical inquiry. (I try to tell people that that’s less a bad ass statement than it sounds.) I’ve grown to cater a certainty of it. But the people in my classes either don’t grasp it or disagree with it (usually the former).

Now I’ve always considered this logic a result of knowledge acquisition and common sense. For me logic and language developed hand in hand in our brains thousands of years ago, brought about consciousness (because if you can talking to your mammoth-hunting buddies, you can talk to yourself), and led to everyday speech and inner monologue. My logic surrounds this notion that humans are confined to more factors than their collective and individual rationale can ever comprehend, let alone control; that our languages aren’t sophisticated enough to deal with the perceived philosophical problems that ideologies were meant to address; and that sticking closely to common sense keeps your feet on the ground and your head out of some metaphysician’s ass.

And yet none of these people like to hear this. Most of them are very religious. Some of them are very intelligent too. These are the ones I engage in debate with most. I always try to point out the fallacies in their arguments and lead them down a logical, common-sensical path. I dialogue instead of monologue, I ask more questions than make statements, and I always attempt to coax them into making my conclusions for me. And yet they always pussyfoot around the argument with red-herrings and ad hominems. The same happens when I argue against Marxists.

I’m not saying my conclusions are necessarily perfect; I’m just saying that they’re certainly more refined than these people’s beliefs. These people refuse to ride the tiger’s back; they abstain from holding on to logic’s back hair until it reaches its eventual conclusions (which, granted, aren’t all that and a bag of pretzels, but they are right). Why the fear of logic? Can people see the less than colorful, all too humbling place it leads to? What mechanism in the brain allows some people to shun unadulterated logic (as opposed to half-discourses and pseudo-logic) for so long? Is it sheer stupidity? I don’t think so; some of these people are extremely perceptive individuals–some more so than me. (I just came upon this methodology of thought through reading. I could have never gotten here on my own.) Why do people fear logic?

2

Sometimes, some people fear that it will lead them away from cherished beliefs, or from an emotionally-comforting place into the unknown. They may fear it’s power.

3

If that’s the case (which, I agree with you that it is), would you say that people are generally moving toward or away from it?

4

I haven’t perceived any general movement. I don’t think I’m smart enough to know something like that.

5

It isn’t that they are afraid of logic, it is that they do not seek nor have any reverence for the truth. Most human beings are not about that; they simply pick a home team and cheer. I am surprised your intensive philosophical labors didn’t already teach you that, because the answer to this lame question is so obvious I sort of feel embarrassed having to point it out. And by the way, I would love to see a little list of these conclusions of yours. Your strictly common-sense methodology does not take into account that some of the most important subjects are not rational. How do you articulate the rationale of something so absurd asman’s desire to live? Or simply man’s desire? In analyzing these kinds of questions you are going to create paradoxes, leaps, abysses, absurdities-- that are none the less true in that they occupy a social reality. Kierkegaard’s leap of faith is not rational, but it occupies a social reality insofar as men accept and live by it; it therefor deserves to be analyzed on its own terms, and comprehended according to its intelligible character. All psychological mechanisms like that must be so analyzed: according to their own intelligible characters. Your one plus one method of textbook philosophy may be okay for analyzing the simpler social constructs, the economy, man’s basic behavior, but it breaks no grounds on fundamental questions: what is the value of desire, or of suffering? Is pleasure simply the release of some internal tension of unconsolidated need and suffering? What is the origin of morality? How do we draw the philosophical implications of some basic facts, and bring them into the perspective of existential questions and moral philosophy: like the absurd origin of the species, the circumstantial basis of all life, etc. The fundamental philosophical impulse, the will to truth itself, is stained by this psychological element: to isolate this element and separate it, to attain to the truth, one must be fully aware of its influences upon the philosophical impulse in the first place, and how it influences it.

6

What’s “Common sense”?

7

In the realm of human ambition, your Occam-razor like philosophical inquiry fails. There, it is usually the most convoluted, irrational, and counter-productive theory that is true.

8

All those things are products of evolution. We desire for things like life because people who don’t, tend to get eaten by saber tooth tigers and such. They’re sentiments or passions or whatever is a synonym of those that are ubiquitous within the human frame and don’t work within logical terms.

Wouldn’t the attempts to answer those questions require the very rationalization you were talking about above? “Why’s” and “How’s” usually presume a “one plus one method” of thinking.

There’s obviously a sentiment within certain individuals that isn’t ubiquitous within the human frame against unrelenting logical consistency. It varies from person to person and I would just like to discuss the intricacies of this phenomena, if it occurs in different people for different reasons, and what, if anything, could be said of its future.

9

Baron,

There’s a difference between “your” logic and logic proper. Which of these do you mean? Very few realize that there’s nothing much in logic proper to credit it with “proving” common sense, scientific fact, or whathaveyou. For one thing, logic is just a set of rules for deriving conclusions from premises, and those rules are usually very simple. For example, modus ponens is the rule underlying the logical form: If A then B. A is the case. Therefore, B is the case. Note the content consists of 'A’s and 'B’s - no “common sense” notions like the Earth is round or gravity exists, no scientific facts like we evolved by natural selection, or the universe began in the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. For another thing, logic can’t be employed unless you begin with unproven premises. You are only justified in asserting your conclusions insofar as you can reach agreement on the premises. If others don’t agree with the premises, they have a right not to grant your conclusions.

I say that people usually don’t realize this because they all too often taken common sense notions - for example, that the Earth is round - for logical argument. They will accuse anyone who disagrees of not being logical. I would agree that they aren’t being reasonable (which I don’t equate with logic proper - strictly speaking), but to say they aren’t being logical, one would have to first demonstrate an immaculately deductive logical argument that concludes in the Earth’s roundness, the premises of which are fully agreed upon by all who are engaged in the discussion. Rarely is such an argument ever given. The arguments that are given are usually fairly good, but to be immaculately deductive in the logic, you have to completely abstain from any inductive leaps, appeals to common sense, appeals to authority, etc. These latter things slip into most people’s arguments surreptitiously.

If what you mean by “logic” is common sense, then I must say it shouldn’t be surprising that you sometimes come across people who disagree with you, for common sense is neither common nor always sensicle. There is a common fallacy that arises when one becomes so used to his own views or so comfortable with them that they start to seem not so much to be opinions or perspectives but objective facts. He thus comes to expect that other people should see exactly the same objective facts. This is only exacerbated when the great majority of people believe the same thing, for that only serves to bolster the impression that it is indeed an objective fact, but objectivity and common public verifiability are not the only means by which a whole community can come to agree on the same ideas. Nonetheless, this is usually what we call common sense, and it isn’t necessarily irrational, though it is rare, to disagree with what becomes publicly sanctioned as “common sense”.

Perhaps some examples of the sorts of arguments you engage in with these people, and how these arguments exemplify your brand of “logic”, would help.

10

There is a feeling, there is a demand, that there is something more interesting that you can do with yourself, more meaningful, more purposeful than your existence is today. That is the demand. That is why there is this restlessness. You become restless because of this drive in you, which is put in there by the society or culture, that makes you feel that there is something more interesting, more meaningful, more purposeful that your life can be than what it is today.

What you are naturally is destroyed by that demand which is put in there by the culture. So, then, your life looks meaningless to you if that is all that you can do. You have tried to fill in that boredom with everything possible. You have all these psychological gimmicks.

You have not succeeded in freeing yourself from the boredom. That is the demand. You are bored with your life, with your existence, because it’s very repetitive. First of all, your physical needs are very well taken care of, here in this part of the world, at least. So, there is no need for you to spend any more energy to survive. That part is taken care of. When that is taken care of, the natural question that arises is a very simple question: is that all that is there?

You can fill that all the time with every conceivable thing that you can imagine or that others can come up with, but yet the boredom is a reality; it’s a fact. Sure. Otherwise, you wouldn’t do anything. You are just bored. Simply bored with doing the same thing again and again and again. And you don’t see any meaning in this.

You’re not quite conscious of that boredom, because you are looking for something to free you from what is not there. The problem is not really the boredom. You are not conscious of the existence of boredom either on the conscious level of your thinking or on the conscious level of your existence.

The attractiveness of those things which you use to free yourself from the non-existing boredom has really created the boredom. And those things really cannot fill this boredom created by that. So it goes on and on and on and on – the newer and still newer techniques and methods. All kinds of things.

There is a peculiar kind of logic in the above paragraph that no one wants to see, for it would put at stake a lot of devises that are precious, a lot of ways and means utilized that have brought you to what you are in accordance to what you consider valuable.

11

Well first of all, logic is not flawless. Nor is it objective or impartial. Two logical people can come to starkly different conclusions regarding the same set of information.

In this we see that “logic” it not one thing and one thing only. There are as many “logics” as there are people alive. So it isnt that people fear logic - it is that their logic is different than yours. Perhaps you can validate your own logic over theirs, and perhaps in many cases I would agree with you. Yet this does not itself mean that your logic is not subjective and flawed. It only means that my logic and yours might coincide to one degree or another. Nor does this mean that there is no real difference between the various logics of people - some are indeed better than others, but better how needs to be asked. If we consider living and being happy, we must consider the role of logic to cover up inconvenient ideas and uncomfortable realities which would disturb our paradigms - logic can keep us sane, and illogic can also keep us sane. We must also consider the role of logic in weakening itself so as to become submissive to emotion, instinct and habit, which are not unimportant to most humans. Comfortable social existence rests upon a flexible logic which is able to rationalise and justify otherwise illogical facts or realities.

At times, it is logical for our logic to be illogical. This is not a logical contradiction, nor a paradox.

We must consider the fact that in evolutionary terms the individual who was the “most logical” (in the “pure logic” sense that you mean it here) was selected for extinction simply because his logic put him too far at odds with the practical social realities of the conditions of his existence.

Keep in mind that logic, while wonderfully useful, is not some sort of ‘Pillar’. Emotions, habits, instincts, conditionings (formal learning), value judgments, psychological needs, all these are just as relevant as logic because all are just as real and important to the human experience. The question is not which is “better” or more “real” than the others, but how do they all work in concert together to generate “you”? And how is this concert’s harmonious functioning necessary for maintaining your sanity, meaning in life, and in an evolutionary sense, our species survival itself?

12

I think that you make a good point here, The Last Man.

The only thing that I would add to that is that there is a difference between actual proof of something and a logical argument. Logic, in a sense is a method of argument that is largely based on Cause and Effect, but the very first word of many logical equations is, “If.”

If x,

and y,

then z.

This is a causal statement stating that when x and y come together the result is a singluar cause, which results in the effect of z. There is much that can be argued here, though. When we say, “If,” x, is x a thing that can rightfully exist, even as a possibility? When we say, “Y,” do we agree on exactly what this y is and what implications it has when combined with x?

What if two parties disagree about this if? What if one party does not find acceptable the very concept of the specific, “If,” of another party. Naturally, the “If,” usually gets challenged in this case, but provided one party accepts the conceptual if and the other does not, then one party can make a logical connection between these things while the other cannot. Sometimes the, “logical,” connection one party can make is not logical at all.

So, first both parties have to accept the, “If,” which is to say that x can at least theoretically be, because in some cases it cannot. Then, both parties have to accept and agree upon the y. After all of this happens, then both parties have to agree that this x and y would necessarily lead to z. At that point, you would have a logical argument, which is still not necessarily an absolute fact or proof.

13

I agree that logic isn’t flawless, but on technical grounds. In terms of objectivity and impartiality, the logic isn’t the flaw; find me someone who can explain how if all nights are dark and it is now night, it can’t be dark.

The fear of logic is based on mistrust. It’s a powerful method of argument, and the risks are threefold: firstly that a small technical error may be overlooked by people not deeply and profoundly grounded in the acceptable rules and unacceptable errors of logic, secondly that the premises used will be misleading, and thirdly that the language used will contain assumptions or connections that do not warrant inclusion but which subconsciously carry through to the argument.

Of those, the first two are the causes of fear; the third is not realised by many people at all outside of the philosophical world. The fear is all the worse in continuous dialogue, when one has to think on one’s feet and respond in real time without the room to analyse the argument. Some philosophical arguments take decades to analyse satisfactorily.

Logic can be a tool of sophistry; to many people, the risk is perceived so acutely that it becomes a warning sign of sophistry. If it threatens cherished beliefs, or even just one’s general sense of security, then it’s very easy to consign it to mental trickery.

14

Why do people fear it? Because one of the conclusions of logic is that you may lose what you have. That is a significant psychological fear: the fear of losing what you have.

If you don’t use logic,
Then there is no fear of its outcome.

15

Good reply. Although I think I should have worded things a tad differently in the OP. I certainly recognize the plurality of logic. I’m basically talking about logical consistency (sometimes logical consistency and logic are interchangeable in my head, and they shouldn’t be). I’m not holding it against any of these people for approaching the world from different grounds of thought than I do; I’m just holding it against them that they aren’t being as consistent and forthright as my arguments are. They’re simply willing to make more logical slip ups than I am.

I was talking to a friend about this sometime ago. I explicated a metaphor whereby individuals each possess unique modes of logic that differ from person to person. The modes of logic are like fortresses; some are poorly defended and dilapidated while others are nearly impenetrable. The only measure of logical consistency is the ability to win arguments (which is different from rhetoric, since that heavily relies on fallacious thinking and red-herrings) in the same way that a measure of a fortress’s defense is how it withstands attack. So when I enter debate with these people, I almost feel bad; it’s like bringing a bazooka to a knife-fight. Their arguments are just rickety little rowboats.

I haven’t a problem with their beliefs, mind you, as belief is in as much a recreational activity as painting pony balls and smoking pot. I just have issue with their claims of knowledge which they brazenly assert yet recoil when importuned to back themselves up with logical consistency.

I’d say logic proper isn’t something that can be isolated away from other things. For instance, proving the Earth is round certainly involves the induction problem. Remote from the complexities of other arguments, proofs, and modes of logic, this truly is a problem. However, when we look at this argument (that the Earth is round and not orthogonal) within the context that it actually exists it is immediately apparent that it logically depends on extraneous factors, such as use. It is hard to prove the Earth’s roundness with demonstrations and analogies alone. But when we consider how useful it is to think of the Earth as being round in light of the presumed truth of other “facts” (which themselves are victims to the same problem), and how much easier it allows us to explain other phenomena with elegance and economy, we can more safely assume it being true. This is what I mean by common sense; a sort of social glue that keeps together logical walls, forcing them to rely on one another. (I’ve always said that the idea that there is one universal logical ground assumes too quickly that logic conforms to gravity.)

16

Ah, mental economy. Very interesting. I was going to bring it up myself earlier. So would you say that since this “boredom” and surplus of mental energies has increased in years past that it will a) continue to do so and b) not stop? Is Richard Dawkins correct to think that atheism will become the majority in centuries (perhaps even decades) to come?

Also, this “boredom” cannot be the sole progenitor of logical inquiry; plenty of privileged individuals have the time and energy excess to spend on such endeavors but pursue other things instead. Boredom certainly drives us to do many things, but only certain people to do certain things.

17

I couldn’t agree more. This question is primarily a devil’s advocate’s question; I really wanted to see people’s responses. Yours is spot in with me.

I agree that if common sense is a sort of social glue, then other entities like religion, government, and markets are social adhesives that can attract more people than common sense can. Like ripping fuzz balls off the floor with Scotch tape versus duct tape.

One sentiment I might disagree with you on (I can’t tell) is the equality of the plurality of logics. It sounds to me like you’re saying that the relativity of logic in people is even across the board; that none is better than another, simply because there isn’t a higher level of logical jurisprudence to appeal to. I disagree; there is: communication. Social communication–usually of a scientific and academic nature–funnel competing views into a synthesis process that usually churns out the “best working model of explanation.” Granted, there are compounding elements of complexity not addressed in that blurb, but there is essentially a common sense that people can dip in and out of like a public pool. I just have problem with people pissing in it.

Common sense allows us to think better; however it doesn’t necessarily make us feel better. That’s where the individual’s heart comes in (as well as other external agents, like religion), which is usually sought after for sentimental issues concerning moral predicaments and God. That’s why saying God exists isn’t common sense. It’s just romantic. That’s also why I think it necessary to call the people I’ve been arguing with wrong. Because they are. That, or just not clear (after all, if they admitted that their faith in God was different than public assertion of his existence that calls on competition like a skinned-elk carcass in piranha-infested waters, I’d have nothing to argue against), but for me, non-clarity and wrongness are one in the same.

Common sense is very useful for everyday things (hence its prevalence in everyday vernacular). However, I don’t see why it has no bearing in philosophical inquiry (which anybody is partaking in if they think about the meaning of life or God). In fact, common sense is pretty much the only bearing we have, logically speaking.

So has common sense not caught up with philosophy yet? Does this explain its awkward loftiness and the only recent endeavors to dissolve the questions instead of answer them? Are we few the only swimmers in the deep side of the pool?

18

Very true. So what do you think came first, the logically “witless” crowd or the social engineering persons who’ve kept such a crowd from properly exercising their capacity to inquire?

For me, historical insanity and unreasonableness are far more excusable because of what we know now that we didn’t know then. These days, however, I’m getting frustrated with the laziness or stupidity (I don’t know which it is) that is so prevalent amongst well-privileged individuals who have the ability and access to think critically. Is it so wrong to expect so much from so many?

19

The witless crowd, of course. It has never been in the interest of a ruling class to have more educated free thinkers than can easily be controlled, as questions of power and entitlement are impossible to unask. And those in power have frequently exercised their influence to define which questions may be asked.

It’s a lack of interest. If life is good enough, not everyone will be bothered about making it better. Living in times of plenty as we do, every year harvesting and creating more than we can possibly use, the wasted production piling up in warehouses to rot and to rust - who would want to shake their fist at the gods?

20

say inferiors

let go of that fear