Week One Lecture: Truth and the Laws of Logic
Logic is a systematic process used to validate the truth or falsity of an idea or statement. Aristotle is the philosopher who discovered and codified the laws of logic. Aristotle was born in Stagira, North Eastern Greece in 384 B.C. and was tutor to Alexander the Great. Aristotle attempted answering the questions: how do we know that such a thing as truth really exist and are there true statements? According to Paula Gottlieb Aristotle held that the law of noncontradiction is a first principle and the firmest principle (2009). Gottlieb goes on to state: Aristotle says that it is a principle which “is necessary for anyone to have who knows any of the things that are”. Obviously we do not need Aristotle to tell us that something is wrong when we contradict ourselves or when others make contradicting statements to us, but it is important to see the disturbing trend in our culture marginalizing critical thinking when it conflicts with coveted ideals. However, some truths are inescapable and here are a few examples:
- I exist: I cannot make this statement unless I do exist. If I said I do not exist, then who is the I making the statement. There has to be an I to speak.
- There is truth: This statement must be true because to state the opposite would be self-contradicting. Example: if I say “There is no truth” I am affirming a “truth” that there is no truth, so I would be contradicting my statement that there is no truth.Truth is inescapable.
Using logic is not always simple, but anything worthy of our limited time and energy can be difficult including the pursuit of truth. Some truths are more difficult to uncover than others. Scientific truth, such as, gravity, speed of light, the age of the universe have taken hundreds and thousands of years to discover. These truths took many gifted minds and failed theories and ideas to arrive at. There is no such thing as fast food science and there should be no such thing as fast food ethics. Moral truth can be even more complex because there are so many possible situations involving the need for sound moral judgment, so do not be discouraged at the variety of disagreement on important topics. As students of truth it is our duty to think through ethical statements and by using reason determine what ideas and statements are true and which are false.
To determine what is true or false there are three laws of logic we will need to understand. The following is the name and brief description of each law:
1. The Law of Identity: Simply put, something is what it is and not something else. An apple is not an orange and a woman is not a man and a man is not a dog (although some women may disagree).
2. The Law of Noncontradiction: To use a previous example: “There is no truth” violates the law of noncontradiction since the statement denies truth and yet claims to be true.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle: Excluded middle simply means there is no middle ground. The statement is either true or false. Example: I exist. There is no middle ground. I cannot almost exist or somewhat exist, I either do or do not exist there is no middle or third option.
The Law of Identity
The law of identity simply states that A is A and not B. According to Douglas Groothuis a thing is itself and nothing other than itself. If we say, "You're not yourself today!" we don't violate the principle of identity. We mean, rather, that you are acting out of character, acting strangely or unexpectedly, given what we know about you. The person is still identical to him- or herself even if he or she is acting strangely. Nor does this law deny the fact that things change over time. What it denies is that something cannot be what it isn't at any given time. I cannot be fifty-one years old and fifty-two years old at the same time (Groothuis, 2013).
Some of you might be saying that this is painfully obvious but there a current social trends, ideals, as well as old and new philosophies that would challenge the concept of the law of identity. Consider Rachel Dolezal, head of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP. Genetically, Ms. Dolezal is White. Although the head of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP is biologically white she is a self proclaimed African American. Some may say this is her own business and the NAACP, but there is more at stake here than a woman who would prefer to identify as an African American. Can we simply decide to be something we are not because we feel a certain affiliation, affection, or draw to be what we are not? If a man can decide to be a woman or a woman can decide to be a man why cant a white woman decide to be black? What if a person decides they do not want to be human? What does that society look like? There are scientist and futurist who are declaring the next step of human evolution is for humans to evolve into non-biological forms. Some are talking of transferring human consciousness into complex computer systems where the body is either unnecessary or robotic. Imaging human consciousness inside a satellite in space, in a commercial jet computer system, or your cousin inhabiting a titanium robot.
Lets get a bit more philosophical. Lets say we buy into a guy named Jean Paul Sartre that there is no essence of what we call human. Lets say that nothing has any inherent essence. For instance a rock should have an essence of rockiness. It should be natural, hard, solid and composed of certain minerals. What if this was just a mental construct and there was really no such thing as a rock or rockiness. Sartre believed there was no "human Identity". We make of ourselves whatever we choose to be. If a man want to be a woman, a dog, or a robot his/her choices are their own.
As Professor Groothuis states above "Nor does this law deny the fact that things change over time. What it denies is that something cannot be what it isn't at any given time." The identity of the term marriage for the first time in human history changed, it has been redefined, but can we do the same thing with gender? Is it psychologically and ethically safe to say there is no such thing as male or female, or is there is no difference between male and female? Are there essences of femaleness and maleness that are distinct? There are currently state agencies within the U.S. that are considering doing away with gender references on state documents. Can we as individuals and society deny the identity of gender because we find this ideologically oppressive?
Hitler preached his anti-Semitic rant that Jews were not human. Hitler appealed to evolution as his reasoning for subjecting to work-camps, gas chambers, and medical experiments those he deemed as weak because the law of "nature" was the strong survive and the weak die. The weak were a danger to the survival of the nation and had to be destroyed for the good of his nations future. For Hitler there was either no essence of being human or the essence of being human was his concept of strength. His ability to distort the law of identity of millions of Jews, handicapped, Christians, and many others allowed him to sway an entire nation into committing astonishing atrocities.
This demonstrates that the law of identity has serious moral implications for humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment