Logic Part I

As was promised about five, six months ago, the subject of logic will now be addressed. It must happen now because understanding future posts will require that a reader can grasp this concept.

In an effort to comprehend the upside down nature of current events, it has occurred to me that those who feel far outweigh those who think. That is not to say that those who feel are less intelligent. It is more a reference to the wind that they have chosen to direct their sails.

So many people get out of bed knowing the way they want things to be, and then proceed to color their day with propaganda, filtering out those things that "don't fit". Few are those who wake up knowing how they want things, and then seek to find "what is".

Logic is void of wants. It is not affected by emotion. It cares nothing for feelings. This may be why it is so unpopular; however, by definition only chaos will ensue when it is abandoned.

Logic seeks to determine one of two things: Is it true, or is it false? That is it. Quite simple.

2 + 2 = 4 True or false? Obviously, true!! This is logic.

Another example: 2+2=5 True or false? Obviously false!! This is logic.

So far, so good? Let's keep going.

In order to determine the validity of conclusions, it is often necessary to combine other known truths or premises. This is often done in a syllogism:
Major Premise: All insects have six legs
Minor Premise: My pet grasshopper, "Hops", is an insect
Conclusion: Hops has six legs

"Hops" has six legs is valid conclusion, assuming that both premises where true. This is where things get a bit tricky. The Minor Premise, unless I'm a liar, is true. The major premise, however, begs the question, "Do all insects have six legs?"

Well, yes, that is one of the defining characteristics of an insect. But is it possible that, in a sick and twisted moment, someone pulled one of Hops' legs off, and that since he is a tough little grasshopper, he has pressed on with only five legs? In this case, the conclusion would have been false because the Major Premise was not true. Some insects may have had their legs pulled off by Sid from Toy Story, so while the conclusion would most likely be true with most grasshoppers, it was not for poor Hops.

Let's do one more:
Major Premise: Drinking regular soda always causes one to gain weight.
Minor Premise: I'm drinking regular soda.
Conclusion: I'm going to gain weight.

The conclusion is true if the premises are true. One could debate the Major Premise; however, for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is true.

But I don't want to gain weight!! Okay, then stop drinking regular soda.

But I don't want to drink diet soda!! Okay, then your going to gain weight.

But I don't want...

STOP IT!!!! You can't have both!! It doesn't matter what you want. How you feel doesn't change reality and truth. Regular soda contains lots of sugar that is metabolized into fat. Your wants are contradictory, they are not logical!!

What is frustrating is that those of us who want to know "what is", and are not afraid to declare it are often subject to Ad Hominem (i.e., name calling) attacks. We are labeled as hateful and mean.

So you think I'm fat? I didn't say anything about your weight, I merely pointed out a logical solution to your problem.

So you're trying to tell me what to do? I don't care what you do; I'm just saying that you can't loose weight and drink regular soda at the same time so please stop complaining about being overweight while you are sucking down a Pepsi!!!

I'm getting a bit off-track. This is supposed to be "educational". I will stop for now, and let the reader absorb the following points:
1) Logic is a means to determine what is true and what is false
2) Logic is callous, it does not care about feelings or wants. By definition, what is true is true and what is false is false. One's emotion cannot change reality.

Stay tuned for Logic Part II: Logical Fallacies.