the nature of logic #

the words “logic” and “knowledge” are often connected in the minds of humans. in the sciences, logic is used religiously, in an attempt to obtain knowledge, in the same way that it is used in religions.

in truth, logic is unable to lead to complete, general knowledge inside of a system, which fully describes the truth.

every logical system, by definition, must exist within some constraints, to prevent it from collapsing onto itself, and these constraints must be considered true and fixed, without the need of proof, since otherwise the initial system should have to begin under new, different, unalterable truths.

such truths, which can define a logical system on their own, are called axioms.

the need for axioms is simultaneously the strength and weakness of logic. on the one hand, through well defined axioms, one can fully comprehend the system under study, while on the other, axioms are a poison in the minds of humans, since humans will inevitably use them and will define them in systems where logic is unable to work.

one of these systems is reality.

it is undeniable that we now know more about the world we live in than our ancestors, but this knowledge is superficial.

the proof for that statement is simple. if someone asks an authoritative figure in physics a simple question such as “what is a magnet? how do magnets work?” they will receive many plausible answers, none of which will truly satisfy the responder, even if they satisfy the questioner. the responder knows that the provided answers are nothing but approximations of the truth, each varying in complexity, with some being closer to reality than others, but none of them being the actual truth of the matter.

at the same time there are a lot of zealously religious persons, that neither know the axiomatic system nor the knowledge base of the system, that stand for scientific truth, without understanding that in essence, they make a conscious choice to believe in its truth.

these people have, therefore, as an axiomatic system for their personal truth the words of scientists, not knowing that with this choice, they are similar to any other religious group that exists in our time.

to paraphrase a quote

are you not a hypocrite?

do you not trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you that they are chemicals?

all knowledge ultimately comes from that which is unprovable.

will you fight? or will you perish like a dog?

given then that one can never know the truth a priori, and all axiomatic systems are unable to describe the entirety of reality, what can one do?

the only way that exists is faith, which is the principal decision one makes before even choosing an axiomatic system, and which occurs due to the fact that, before you can study the system, you need to belive that it is well defined and founded, and also that to some extent it is capable of representing the truth.

the failure of logic #

to conclude the discussion on logic, i would like to examine in depth the propagation of knowledge, in order to present the greatest result; the fact that most appeals to logic are themselves a logical fallacy.

logical fallacies are, like all named things, characterizations; and they grant a person the ability to understand if a proposition is logically consistent in the broader system of an axiomatic system.

the fallacy that is most worth discussing here is the one committed when appealing to an authority, which should not and cannot stand as a logical argument. this is because every authoritative figure, being human, has the capacity to make mistakes, or to not express themselves in a perfect manner, or to even act maliciously. at the same time, every individual appealing to said authority might have misunderstood the content of the argument, or act maliciously for personal benefit.

besides, such techniques have been used countless times throughout history, in order to convince and manipulate individuals to surrender their liberties, their properties and themselves to others.

this is the main argument used by the supporters of logic; in favour of it, and against other religions.

nevertheless, logic itself not only appeals to authority, but this fallacy is necessary for it’s continued existence and propagation.

the evolution and spread of logical ideas is based on continuity. every new generation receives scientific knowledge, folklore, theology, and using these as a foundation is able to expand the collective understanding of the world. through this action, humanity does not need to start from zero, but rather they only have to rely on the authoritative guidance of the people before themselves to advance.

it is this very act however that, according to logic itself as born by this very process, is fallacious.

even worse, the very act of propagating knowledge, as well as any form of communication, must appeal to an authority, for why else would a person communicate unless they felt like they had something to say.

under this realization, logic is incapable of logically leading an individual towards the truth, except for possibly a single path.

this path demands for each and every individual to have a non-finite time, so that they may explore truth on their own, without any prior knowledge, using only their own internalized logic and deriving the truth themselves, as they understand it, using a series of logical arguments. knowledge earned in this manner asks of the individual to verify the claims made along the way themselves, which seemingly leads, finally, the individual to the truth.

i say ‘possibly’ a single path, and ‘seemingly’ leads to the truth, because even in this scenario appealing to authority is unavoidable; for does a person not have to trust themselves that the knowledge they have is valid? do they not have to rely on themselves as an authoritative figure to explore past the beginning of their reason?

alas, this is the greatest and most subtle flaw of logic; that even in the abscence of others, you need to have faith, at minimum to yourself.