This week the blog considers the
word “dialectic.” Johnson gives this word the Greek etymology διαλεκτικη (dialektikā)
and defined as “Logical; argumental.” Greek διαλεκτικη (dialektikā) or διαλεκτικoς
(dialektikos) has the general meaning of reasoned discourse and
synonymous with λογικος (logikos) from which we get the English word logic.
Some may be hesitant at the term logic
thinking such things reside only in the realm of the philosophers and academe,
but anyone who has heard or read something and responded by saying, “Well,
that doesn’t make any sense,” was probably using logic to parse the information
and thinks of it simply as common sense. However, logic seems to come
naturally only in parochial settings, for when someone is asked to explain why
they consider something to be common sense, they often cannot articulate the
reasons. Logic comes most often, among the general populace, as a reflex rather
than measured response.
The three Laws of Thought are the
beginning antidote to the inarticulation. These laws are: the Law of Identity,
the Law of Excluded Middle, and the Law of Contradiction (Ruby, 262). The Law
of Identity applies to things, propositions/statements, and, I suggest, to
actions, at least in concept. The basic idea of the law is that if a thing has
a certain property, it has it. If a certain thing has the properties of
a human being, then that thing is a human being. If a statement has the
properties of being true, then it is true. Whatever a thing is, it is and it is
not something that it is not. This may sound cryptic or oversimplified but it
is rather vital to understanding reality. When this law is ignored, ambiguity
is sure to follow. Consider any word which one would like to choose. If that
word does not describe certain properties and exclude all others, then it could
stand for anything or all things, thus, making that word useless as a form of
communication since it has no definite meaning. Without the Law of Identity, a
work like Johnson’s is useless.
The Law of Excluded Middle states
that a thing either has a certain property (or properties) or it does not. Every
precise statement is true or non-true. There can be no middle ground between
true and non-true as there can be no middle ground between x and non-x.
It would be inaccurate to say there is no middle ground between 1.0 and 2.0.
In fact, there is: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. The numerical
quantity 1.1 has the properties of 1.0 plus 0.1. Though 1.1
has all the attributes of 1.0, it also has the attributes of 0.1.
Therefore, 1.0 and 1.1 are not the same – 1.1 is non-1.0.
Again, this is not nit-picking, but rather a way of being precise – a way of seeing
and understanding reality as it is, free of distortion.
The Law of Contradiction says
that a thing cannot both have properties x and non-x at the same
time and in the same respects. No statement can be both true and non-true at
the same time and in the same respect. For example, is the statement, “All dogs
are dogs and all dogs are green.” true or non-true? Some may interject that it
is both. However, the question asked if the statement, as a whole, is true or
non-true. It is non-true for the same reasons that 1.1 is non-1.0,
though it contains the properties of 1.0.
Seeing the world through precise logical
eyes takes practice – practicing such fundamentals as are outlined in
this article. It could be argued that every dictionary and dictionary maker is
a testament to the rightness of what this article propounds. Lexicography
embraces a coveted assurance that every word has its own significance, however
intimately related it is to another. Johnson built his life’s work on this
truth – a truth held in common by an unspoken logic.
Until next week.
John
I have added a link on the right
to Lionel Ruby’s Logic: An Introduction for additional reference for
those so inclined.
No comments:
Post a Comment