sense of logic on the commitment Often, when I isolate myself, I turn to the pool next door I have to dive for a while. For a moment, I think swimming again in the blue of the seas of Antarctica, with the slight advantage of being free from sharks, killer whales and seals malignant. Over time, listening to the conversations of people in the locker room, I articulated a few of the most disturbing observations.
The first, anecdotal, is that men when talking with others while naked women never talk or sex. Funny thing, if we consider that in other places, sex is the first topic of conversation in front of football, work and car.
The second point I would like to discuss here is related to an expression often used in conversations. Let me describe the situation. In the dressing room, two men were talking about the defeat of their football team and gave an explanation of the event, not chance, but "the lack of logic" of the alignment chosen by the coach. This use of the term "logic" caught my eye and then I saw that applies in any area of \u200b\u200breality (work, politics, supermarket, traffic, etc..) either in its negative form, mentioned above, or as a corollary underpinnings of a statement under the above qual " logic is! ". Here is a misuse of the term "logic", I fear, masking some of pernicisiosas BUDGET BE NECESSARY? Consequences both practical and epistemological.
If you look in any dictionary and look up the definition of "logic" you will find that this is a formal discipline that determines the structures of the arguments make valid abstraction of their content. The logic then is a condition that any real argument has to fulfill, but in no case is the only guarantor of its truth. Flosófico speaking: it is a necessary but not sufficient for the truth of a statement.
can argue many things that are logically correct but whose truth depends on other factors. Allow me an example of playful extracted from the situation discussed above with respect to the suppression of sex as a topic of conversation in the locker room. This could explain the following two ways.
P1: Heterosexual men, if they are stimulated then talk in terms of sex on women.
P2: Heterosexual men if women are then stimulated.
P3: In a locker room there are only naked men. Conclusion
in the locker room straight men do not speak in terms of sex on women
could now make another argument with the same conclusion.
P1: Gay men if they are stimulated then talk in terms of sex on men.
P2: Gay men if women are not encouraged then.
P3: In the locker room there are only naked men.
P4: Gay men are stimulated in the locker room. Conclusion
in the locker room gay men do not speak in terms of sex on women.
We have in these cases argumentative structures with different assumptions lead to the same conclusion.
could even vary a syllogism maliciously to find another explanation for the silence of the men with respect to the subject of sex in the locker room:
P1: Heterosexual men, if they speak in terms of sex on women are then stimulated.
P2: Gay men if they see naked men are stimulated.
P3: In the locker room there are only naked men.
P4: If someone is stimulated in the dressing room is homosexual. Conclusion
spoke in a heterosexual sexual terms women in the locker room then he is gay.
Indeed in this case is homophobic awareness that pushes the poor straight into silence for fear of being considered gay.
Apart from the hypothetical claims of truth of these claims, here are some examples showing that logic is not enough to accept the claims or comply with some thought. It might also in this regard recall the figure of the "antinomy." This occurs when two arguments are logically correct conclusions contradict each other. This is a common phenomenon and does not signal a bad thought, but the lack of logic to speculative acts.
With all these games we can see intuitively why the logic is not guaranteed to find the right premises and successful ways of interpreting the facts: the logic governs only the right way interrelation statements on the periphery of the truth of these. Indeed, who wants to find true statements in the world will focus on how the material as semanticizes perceptions and interpretive models to compare the theories proposed for, then try argumentative relationship based on a solid structure.
turn now to the scene where the alpha male is dried with a towel while your partner says illogic beta alienation coach picked for the last game. There are reasons to think that are sufficient for someone who works professionally organizing teams, tactics and lineups have acted without logic? That is, it is not able to argue why a certain decision has been taken? Is it not rather that the alpha male can not or will not, understand the possibility of strategies and mental representations beyond itself? Indeed, when the hairy-chested manly body and deep voice criticizing the coach's strategy, not attacks against a structural inconsistency of the relationship between premises and conclusion, but the inconsistency of the difference between thinking and the coach. At the same time denying the validity of the thoughts of others accusing him of "lacking in logic."
What happens here is that it confuses logical thinking and this is a mistake since they are two very different activities, although a close relationship between them. While that thought is an activity designed to make representations of the world, ways Regularia syllogistic logic to articulate these representations or, in its most recent forms, to translate them into a system of symbols Abtract.
When we identify with logical thinking we are reducing both, while assuming that there is only one logical way of thinking. Very wrong assumption that home educated relativism professed by all citizens of the postmodern liberal. Paradoxically, these two speeches are often mixed in one person: "Each has its truth, but the other has no logic."
relativistic Although we all say to outbursts seem respectful of others, there are few who can take a stand as well, either because in our conscientious are scheduled estrcuturas totalitarian grammar result of a long historical tradition of tribalism, either because few can have the courage to sustain their lives, beliefs or actions in poverty and arbitrariness. One can counter-
to this that we are demanding a too narrow concept of logical and appealing to the pragmatic, arguing that the meaning of words is given by everyday use of language. We might even appeal to the philosopher Hans Georg Gadamer, who says somewhere in the philosophers to censor the use the sports commentators make of terms like "transcendent" or "transcendental" to mean "very important", arguing that in this case imposing a set of language of a discipline to everyday speech. Indeed, those who have studied a little philosophy can not listen to a sports broadcast without blushing as philosophers use "Transcendent" to describe what is beyond the subject matter or perception, "transcendental" to mean "the conditions of the possibility of knowledge" and "very important" to say that something is of great importance.
Admittedly, though, that if you look in the dictionary these words may be noted that terms such as "momentous" keep every sense, both specialized and ordinary language. But on the contrary, it is not the same logic. The logic is in any dictionary discipina regulating the correct construction of arguments and it is good to maintain this definition in place which is making its way into common speech that "logic" is what must be accepted as true.
If we keep then the definition of logic and not reduce it to a mere unilateral act of intolerance, we will be able to assume that any position can be argued and defended logically. Living under this assumption can certainly seem unstable, rapid and even frivolous, but is also a good exercise restraint with which to curb idiosnicráticos totalitarian impulses with which all subjectivity is built in the world.
Who knows if you learn to make mistakes is a good way to grasp the reality that surrounds us.
