Words have meaning.
This is the basic construct for all language. However, those words are not static in their definition, uses, and purpose; especially in the English language. Case in point: the word ‘Gay’. The dictionary definition of this work, until perhaps ten to fifteen years ago, was joyous or happy; chipper; carefree. Today its meaning has shifted to define a homosexual male, or homosexuality altogether. It has evolved still further in its slang and derogatory insinuations, to mean stupid and/or unfair, among many other things.
This same principle of fluidity of word meaning can be applied to my topic here, today: The social definition of logic has mutated to be understood basically as what I would call reason. My problem with this definition is that it takes away any word to describe what logic truly is.
A reason is something that explains, or justifies. The cold hard facts, as it were. Quantifiable, irrefutable constants, and evidence. “I dropped a penny, and the force of gravity upon it caused it to fall to the ground.” This is a function of reason. When you begin to try to quantify *why* the penny was dropped, it becomes more complicated. The quantifiable evidence: It was done on purpose (I stated my intention of dropping the penny, before I did so). There was no ultimate benefit from this action (the only end result, was that I was one cent poorer). Reason would not compute, because according to the constants, 2+2 is equating 0. It has been dubbed ‘illogical’.
To call something illogical, generally implies that ‘A’ cannot compute to ‘B’; that there is no causality to have the former produce the latter. That there is no string of reason (or facts) to link the two. If I decide to unexpectedly puncture the tire on my car, and there is no string of reason, or facts to explain why this has happened, it is deemed illogical. However, it is. There is always logic to every action under the sun.
Logic, then, is the process by which we receive stimuli, process them, choose how to react, and do so. A form of causality that extends beyond the physical, and takes into account mental processes, if you will. These stimuli do not necessarily need to be reasonable. Emotional responses and influences, I would argue, are logical, and contribute a great deal to the logic process.
If the sum of stimuli received are equal to the numerical value 10 (with the different stimuli being 4, 5, and 1), the mental process 2, choice 1 (for the sake of simplification of the example, choice being a binary of 0 or 1), and the end reaction X, a representation may look something like this:
((4+5+1)x2)^1=X
X=20
X will always equal 20, if all the factors are the same. This result would be duplicable, if all the factors were exactly the same. Emotion is very difficult to replicate exactly, which is why it is rare for even the same person to react exactly the same way to stimuli twice. There is also the factoring in of experience and learning, that renders this nearly impossible. Were the exact same mind to encounter the exact same situation, in the exact same way, in the exact same mental state, the end result would be identical. Were they not, one of the factors would vary (for example, the mental process equals 3), and the end result differs greatly.
Emotion and feeling are a large part of the mental process, and decision making. To continue, then with my proposed story: I slash my own tires. It makes no sense to an outside viewer, and serves no reasonable purpose. However, I did it because I was angry, and in a violent temperament. The stimuli of this anger, accompanied with an object that I would be able to damage without infringing upon anyone else, and therefore avoiding severe repercussion, is evaluated by my mind; here is weighed against the violent temperament, and need for release of mental pressure. The choice, then becomes to lash out and transfer mental stress, into physical violence as a proverbial release valve. The end action results.
There is a string of logic, here. An explanation, a causality. There is always cause, and effect. Whenever we cannot see the relationship, we have failed to take into consideration all the factors. Whether they are *reasonable* or not. Reason does not dictate relevance.
Logic is a constant.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment