The Art of Logic and Reasoning Power: Practical Logic E-Book

Edward Beals

• Herausgeber: Mike Thomas
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021

Beschreibung

Finally The New Revised Edition is Available!

 

Leseprobe

The Art of Logic and Reasoning Power: Practical Logic

Epigraph

“And first with Reason, which is also best;

Reason that rights the wanderer, that completes

The imperfect; Reason that resolves the knot Of either world, and sees beyond the veil. For Reason is the fountain spring of old From which the prophets drew, and none beside. Who boasts of other inspiration, lies; There are no other prophets than the wise.”

—Jami, the Sufi Poet.

Practical Logic

In this book you are asked to consider that wonderful phase of Personal Power known as Reasoning Power, and to include in such consideration the principles of Practical Logic. In the practical instruction which is set forth in the series of books of which the present volume is one, Personal Power is regarded as being a phase of the expression and manifestation of POWER, i. e., the All-Power from which all forms and phases of particular Power directly or indirectly proceed.

Reason is the activity of the highest faculties of cognition, thought, understanding and knowledge. It is the highest process of the intellect, the thinking faculty, the faculty of understanding, the faculty of knowing. Reasoning proceeds by logical processes, even when the reasoner knows naught of formal rules of Logic. Logic is: “The science or art of exact reasoning, or of pure and formal thought; or the laws according to which the processes of pure thinking should be conducted.”

Logic may lie regarded from either of two general viewpoints, viz., (1) that of Formal Logic, in which the subject is treated in accordance with the academic, technical, formal position; or (2) that of Practical Logic, in which technical form and academic treatment are largely set aside in favor of the presentation concerned with efficient use, employment, work, utility and action. In the present consideration there shall be but little reference to the methods of Formal Logic; the subject will be presented almost entirely according to the methods of Practical Logic.

Reasoning applied according to the methods of Practical

Logic, consists of the processes of consecutive thinking in which the mind passes before it in review the essential facts concerning a subject, and then, after a careful consideration of their respective characteristics and relations, draws conclusions and makes judgments conformable with truth. Reasoning, and Practical Logic, are concerned with the discovery of the truth regarding the existence, nature and character of any subject or object of thought to which the attention is directed for that purpose; moreover, they are concerned with the discovery of efficient means whereby definite ends may be secured, and definite results effected.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Reasoning according to the methods of Practical Logic may be expressed by the term “purposive effort,” i. e., effort directed definitely and with purpose. Reasoning inspired by Practical Logic must ever be purposive—it must have an aim and end, an intention, object and purpose, and must be inspired and directed by these motives. That aim and end, intention, object and purpose of Reason and Practical Logic is always found to be: the discovery of truth and of facts.

When you reason about anything, you do so in order to discover something at present unknown to you. That which you seek is unknown to you, though usually you have a more or less general notion of the direction which the mind must travel in its search for it. You may not know just what you want, or just what you hope to find; but you are conscious of the want of a general or particular “something,” and you have a more or less definite idea of the general class of things to which it belongs, and in which it must be sought. The more clearly and definitely

you perceive the exact nature of the want, the more definite and determined will be your reasoning leading up to its discovery.

It has been well said that, “All reasoning begins in doubt”; that “the process of reasoning is always one of problem solving; the occasion for reasoning is always a ‘thwarted purpose’.”

If you were Omniscient—All-Knowing—(as the Absolute or Supreme Being of philosophy and theology always is held to be), then you would never have any need of reasoning, and, consequently, would never reason at all. This, because in such case you would have nothing left about which to reason—you would know all things. Your purpose would never be thwarted, for there would be nothing to thwart it, and nothing by means of which it might be thwarted. You would never be perplexed about anything whatsoever, and would never have to “think out” or “think about” anything.

Philosophers have held that an Omniscient Omnipotent Being can not properly be held to “think” at all in the form of reasoning; such a Being would transcend Reason—it would “know” everything that is to be known, without effort, directly and immediately; moreover, it would have no “thwarted purpose” to overcome and remedy by means of Reasoning. Reasoning, then, is seen to be a mental power reserved for finite beings who have much to learn, and many “thwarted purposes” to overcome and to remedy—and who need to employ reasoning in order to cure such troubles and to remedy such deficiencies. Reasoning Power, then, is seen to belong to the category of Personal Power.

Logic investigates the processes of Reasoning in order, (1) to discover the qualities distinguishing correct thinking; and (2) to formulate rules and methods whereby invalid thinking may be avoided, and valid thinking may be secured. It announces certain basic laws and principles which have been found to govern all valid thinking; it teaches certain rules and methods by means of which valid thinking may be insured and secured, and invalid thinking avoided.

Formal Logic strives to give to the form of Logical Reasoning the technical, scientific accuracy of mathematical formulas; its teachers have sought to discover and announce logical terms and formulas, often of extreme technicality and complexity, which correspond to those employed in higher mathematics. Practical Logic, on the contrary, holds that only in a very inadequate way can Logic be reduced to algebraic expression; its teachers seek rather to announce plain, practical rules and methods whereby the average thinking individual may assure himself that he is pursuing the correct general laws and principles of Reasoning, and that he is avoiding the fallacies which beset the road of thought.

As we have already told you, we shall have very little to do with Formal Logic in this book; but we shall have much to do with Practical Logic. We shall proceed upon the theory that, “Psychology is descriptive; Logic is regulative and corrective; Reason is creative.” The edifice of our instruction is built upon sound foundations, having a strong pillar at each corner. These foundation pillars are as follows, (1) Psychology, (2) Practical Logic, (3) Experience, and (4) Common Sense. Each pillar has its definite and particular place and purpose in the whole plan; but no one of them would be strong enough to support the structure were the other three removed. It is only when the four elements represented by these pillars are united in strength, and harmony of arrangement, that the structure is properly supported and scientifically balanced.

You probably have desired (at some time in your life at least) to learn something concerning the principles of Practical Logic or Logical Reasoning. Most persons have felt this desire. Many persons have sought such information in the technical textbooks of Formal Logic; but most of them have found in such books chiefly a great disappointment. Instead of practical instruction, they have found strange, mysterious terms. Instead of practical rules, they have found abstruse, artificial formulas having apparently no relation to everyday life and thought and their requirements. They have asked for the bread of instruction, and have been given the cold stone of formal, technical, academic categories, and hair-splitting distinctions having no discernible connection with the actual thinking processes of the average man. Many an eager seeker after the truths of Logical Thinking has become discouraged after an experience of this kind—possibly after several such—and has given up all hopes of ever learning anything about the real meaning and use of Logic.

But, we are glad to be able to say, there has been of late years a decided tendency in the direction of bringing down the subject of Logic from the region of thin air and extreme coldness in which it has been kept for so long—down to the warmer and more comfortable valleys wherein most of us dwell. Formal Logic is taking its place with the study of the “dead languages”; Practical Logic is taking a place on the level with the study of the living tongues. The pragmatic spirit of modern thought is insisting that the essential, usable, workable elements of Logic be separated from its ancient dead forms, and be made obtainable in living, practical forms adapted to the requirements of everyday life. Practical Logic is “coming to the front,” while Formal Logic in many cases is being “shown out by the back door” of practical mental establishments.

It has been said that, “The theory of every operation of the mind is later than its performance; men were accustomed to think correctly long before they began to reflect upon their thinking faculties and the processes by which their results were obtained.” It has also been said that, “A meagre soul can never be made fat, nor a narrow soul be made large, by merely studying the Rules of Thinking.” So, have your thinking first, and plenty to think about, and then ask your logician to teach you how to scrutinize with a nice eye the processes by which you have arrived at your conclusions.

The real office of Practical Logic is largely corrective and regulative. It points out and corrects fallacious reasoning on your part; it enables you to detect fallacious, sophistical, or casuistical reasoning on the part of others; it exercises a direction over your habitual processes of thought, thereby inhibiting illogical forms of thought and supplanting them by true logical forms. If it simply enabled you to detect the false reasoning of other persons, and to prevent you from being deceived by such, the study of Practical Logic would be well

“worth while”; in reality, it not only accomplishes this task, but also performs other equally important work for the individual who earnestly studies its principles.

There are many persons who have never even heard of the rules and methods of Logical Reasoning, and who do not know even the meaning of the principal terms employed in that science, but who, nevertheless, have really been employing these methods with more or less correctness, and observing these rules more or less faithfully, during their entire period of life. They are like the man in the French comedy who expressed surprise when informed that he had been “talking prose” all his life, for (said he) “I never learned prose, never studied it, never was taught it—never even knew that I was talking it; I must have a remarkable mind!” So, many would doubtless wonder if informed that they were using logical forms and methods in their thought; they, too, might think their minds to be wonderful, inasmuch as they had never studied Logic and never know that they were employing its methods with more or less success.

Jevons says: “Ninety-nine people out of a hundred might be surprised on hearing that they had been employing syllogisms and other logical forms, converting propositions, framing hypotheses, and making classifications with genera and species. If asked whether they were logicians, they would probably answer, No! They would be partly right; for I believe that a large number even of educated persons have no clear idea what Logic is. Yet, in a certain way, every one must have been a logician since he began to speak. I may be asked: If indeed we cannot help being logicians, why do we need Logic at all? The answer is that there are logicians and logicians. All persons are logicians in some manner or degree; but unfortunately, many persons are bad logicians, and suffer harm in consequence. It is just the same in other matters. * * * We must reason well or ill; but Logic is the Science of Reasoning which enables us to distinguish between the good reasoning which leads to truth, and the bad reasoning which leads to error and misfortune.”

The logicians did not invent the essential forms of Logic; instead, they discovered them already in existence and being employed with more or less accuracy and precision by all thinking individuals. The laws of Logical Thought are not commands announced by some ruling authority; they are merely statements of “the way the mind works” when it reasons truly and efficiently; they are Laws of Nature, not laws of men.

The Laws of Practical Logic are simply the statements of certain principles and methods observed and applied, more or less faithfully and consistently, by intelligent men and women when they reason seriously, carefully, and deliberately.

Men reasoned more or less correctly, observing more or less faithfully the essential logical forms, long before the term “Logic” was coined, and still longer before the present-day principles and methods of Logic were announced. This, however, is no more remarkable than the fact that all Nature, and all contained within Nature, obeyed the Law of Gravitation long before that law was discovered, and still longer before its principles of operation were generally and commonly known to men. Newton simply discovered the existence of certain physical laws—and announced them; logicians simply discovered the existence of certain mental laws—and announced them.

It is true that men have done good thinking without a formal acquaintance with the Laws of Logical Thought; but they did so “in spite of” their lack of knowledge—not “because of” it. No man ever thought efficiently because of his ignorance of the principles of Logic! On the other hand, you can no more reasonably expect to become a proficient and efficient logical reasoner by merely knowing the laws of Practical Logic, than you could expect to become a proficient and efficient mathematician by simply knowing the Laws of Mathematics. In either case, something more is needed; but in each case it is equally true that you will do well to learn thoroughly those rules, principles, and laws in order to attain correctness, to secure freedom from error, and to detect the errors of others which are often claimed to be truth, in these respective branches of scientific thought.

In the spirit of the above statements, the following instruction in the principles of Practical Logic is offered to you.

The Psychology of Reasoning

Psychology does not attempt to solve the problem of “just what Mind is.” Instead, it contents itself with regarding Mind as experiencing “a series of mental states,” and of discovering and announcing “just how” the mental processes arise, proceed, and manifest themselves. In this way, Psychology inquires into the mental processes involved in the activities of Reasoning, and reports just what laws, principles, and methods of procedure it has discovered to be active in that important field of mentation.

In the first place, it discovers and reports that Reasoning is a phase or form of Thinking; that phase or form which is concerned with considering, deliberating, forming opinions, judging, concluding and ascertaining valid grounds for belief in anything. It discovers and reports that Thinking employs Thoughts as its material, these Thoughts being combined, woven and manufactured into the complex products of Reasoning.

Perception and Percepts

Thoughts are of varying degrees of complexity, ranging from the simplest perception to the most complex general idea. The simplest form of Thought is that known as the Percept, or the simple idea derived from Perception. But even the simplest Percept is really complex, and composed of several elements, as you shall see presently. Perception is not the simplest and most elementary mental process; below it in the scale is what is known as Sensation. Sensation, however, is not usually included in the category of Thought; on the contrary, it is considered to be “the raw material of Thought.” It is worth while to pause here a moment in order to note the distinction between Sensation and Perception.

Sensation is: “The mental state arising from the excitation of portions of the nervous system by reason of their contact with objects or forces external to the nervous system.”

Perception is: ‘“The mental state arising from (1) the conscious recognition of the sensory reports; (2) the interpretation of these reports as particular kinds of Sensation: and (3) the association of these reports with the external object or force originally giving rise to them.

Example: There is placed before you a certain external object—the object known to most persons as an Orange. Your mental processes concerning it are as follows: Your sense of Sight reports certain conditions arising from an excitation of the optical nerves; your sense of Touch reports certain conditions arising from the contact of the nerves of your finger-tips with something external to it; your sense of Smell reports certain conditions arising from the contact of your nerve-ends located in the mucous membrane of your nostrils with certain subtle emanations of the substance of something external to them;

your sense of Taste reports certain conditions arising from the contact of the nerves located in your mouth and tongue with an outside substance which has been placed within the mouth, or upon the extended tongue; your sense of Hearing makes no report in this particular case.

Your Perception then proceeds to recognize and interpret these Sensations; in doing so, it is aided by your past experience with Sensation, by means of which you have evolved from the simple-sensation stage of the young infant to the perceptive stage of the adult of at least average experience with external things. Your Perception also proceeds to associate these Sensations with things external to itself. It recognizes and interprets these sensory reports in terms of perception of size, shape, form, distance, color, etc.; in terms of perception of weight, size, shape, form, degree of hardness, etc.; in terms of perception of odor, fragrance, aroma, etc.; in terms of sweetness and agreeable taste, etc. To all of these sensory reports it applies certain terms which it has adopted as representing certain perceived sensations. It recognizes the perceptive elements of roundness, certain size, certain shape, certain form-characteristics, yellowish color; of certain weight and certain “feel”; of fragrance and aroma; of sweetness and pleasant taste. It interprets these perceptive elements in symbolic forms of thought and speech called “words,” or “terms.” It associates these perceptive elements or characteristics with the external object which has given rise to the several sensory-stimuli in question.

You may object that you “perceive” instinctively, and that you never perform consciously the processes just described. But we would remind you that while Sensation is instinctive, Perception is acquired through experience, and becomes instinctive only by reason of repeated practice and cultivation of the habit. The young infant “senses,” but does not “perceive.” It learns only by experience to distinguish between its various sensations; to recognize them as such; to interpret them; to associate them with external objects. It “feels” from the start; but it must learn by gradual experience to recognize, interpret, and associate with external objects, such feelings and sensations.