an irrational rationalist and rational irrationalist
Is reason/logic the axiom or first principle which all things should get tuned to for their validity? If so, what does reason/logic draw its own authenticity from? Why is it that people known for their dry, hard and impassive reasoning often find themselves in heated arguments against each other? Does this mean that their logics (in the plural) are mutually incompatible?
Value logic is different from mathematical logic, and the former, not matter what raw materials it feed on, twists and turns everything to suit itself and it is often just as good as the illogical/irrational or the neurotic.
Reason/logic is like a machine—it serves its master’s purpose, just like a faithful German shepherd. The Chinese logic led that country to Mao Tse-tung and Mao’s logic was a such a tight stranglehold round the Chinese neck that the country could breathe only after Mao’s death. How many millions of people died? About twelve millions. The Russian logic argued its way through the maze of all the country’s intellectuals, artists, mathematicians, politicians, philosophers, scientists and what not to Stalin and a wise man had LITERALLY to dance when he said “Dance.” How many people died? About twelve million.
The whole of Germany with its tradition of philosophers, artists, scientist, intellectuals and endless blah blah blah, which are among the world’s best, trundled along the German logic and put the country in the Nazi logic which in turn yoked its reasoning bulls together to serve tilling its purpose—sport-killing the Jews, gratuitously. How many Jews were killed? Six million.
Well, I wanted this piece of writing taper into something. Emotion was also there. It was interesting, and there was fun, too. I laughed when I began to write this. Now I have forgotten all. Everything. I am sleepy. The slits of my eyes are already … blah, blah, blah… I may remember latter. I will write further, if I remember. For now, shining off.
Reasoning/logic is the nature of the law, but as reasoning/logic feeds off the more fundamental ground or environment it finds itself in (such as, culture, custom, religion, etc.), the law of different countries following different religions, having different cultures and customs engage in different legal reasoning. As a result, the law of Afghanistan or Iran is different from the law of the United States or the United Kingdom. The law of China would thus reason differently from that of India. In other words, the principles of reasoning would be the same in the mathematical way; however, what these distinct bodies of law regard as axioms and premises and how they draw conclusions would be markedly different. In the final analysis, reason/logic is, thus, founded on the unreason/illogic or mystery of cultural emotions taking roots in the survival instinctual drives going as far back as the pre-primate ancestors of humans and even before that to the advent of the first life on the earth. Reasoning/logic cannot always be reliable as the best guide of our conduct because it serves the good and evil purposes of its master and often leads to such irrationality and madness as the Holocaust.
Further to come…