www. Radical New Thoughts .com

More Than Words

This is a difficult yet important lesson. It is difficult, because it uses words to explain the limitations of words, and because it will seem like an attack on reason to some (it isn't). It's important because if you really want to think "outside the box" and you really want to grow and develop in your power to think in new ways, you have to be aware of the trap that your own words can set for you.

You may recall the following quote from Ayn Rand in a previous lesson: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." I pointed out that while this is true in the strictest sense, especially in mathematics, it's only part of the story when it comes to words. I promised more on that in an upcoming lesson. Well, here it is.

Let's start with a basic syllogism:

At first glance this is entirely logical. If you agree with the two propositions, you are rationally obligated to agree with the conclusion, right? Ah, but it isn't so simple, even though we might like it to be. Let's look at the potential flaws in getting "stuck" in this kind of reasoning.

Unlike in mathematics (and perhaps physics), in the rest of life our words and their definitions can never come close to encompassing the whole truth. We can, for example, imagine circumstances where "stealing" is the moral thing to do (go ahead - give it a try), so "stealing is immoral" really means something like, "what we typically call 'stealing' is usually immoral." In order to think about such things and communicate more easily we use the simpler statement, but we reformulate our premises as necessary - when our conclusions don't fit reality.

For example, suppose Bob's daughter is starving, and he wants to do what is morally right. The only way he sees to feed her in time to save her life is to enter a stranger's house and take some food. He believes the premises of the above syllogism, but nonetheless decides to take this food - and he thinks it's the correct moral decision. Later he explains that taking food (or anything else) without permission isn't stealing if it's the only way to survive. Essentially, he redefines "stealing" to exclude cases where the action is necessary to attain higher moral values (the life of his daughter).

You can see that he looked at reality, took the decision which presented itself as most correct, and then created a moral explanation to fit his action. If he were trapped by the words and definitions he previously accepted, he would have let his daughter die, to avoid the "immoral" act. Instead he changed his beliefs to fit what he "saw" as the truth (as opposed to what his logic said was true).

This is an example of how we must continually redefine and clarify the concepts we use. As Ayn Rand suggested, Bob checked his premises and found one to be insufficient. However, we can't really say that it is incorrect, because in a sense there are no ultimately "correct" premises in such cases. There are simply "more correct" and "less correct" premises. Define stealing in any way that you want and I can give you a circumstance that will make you redefine it or add to your definition. This is true with virtually all concepts.

Truth Beyond Our Language And Logic

Notice that Bob redefined "stealing" after he decided on a course of action that contradicted his previous premises. You could call this is "rationalization" rather than reasoning, but it also suggests that we can often see the truth of a matter before we apply traditional "reasoning" and "logic" to it. What if physicists "prove" that it's impossible for bumble bees to fly, and you can find no flaw in their reasoning? You can then assume that you are hallucinating, or you can take the flight of the bumble bee to mean that the physicists' reasoning is flawed - whether or not you can prove it at the moment.

The latter approach is honest truth-seeking, yet sometimes we ignore reality in favor of our logic. For example, I heard an otherwise compassionate man say that because he could find no logical and defensible set of words to ascribe any rights to animals, people should be allowed to beat them. This, despite the fact that he "saw" such cruelty as wrong. On the evening news a man logically explained how we have the right to drop a nuclear bomb on Iraq, and why we should. Any compassionate impulses he had were over-ruled by his total allegiance to his words, logic, and where these took him. For him, there could be no truth outside of his reasoning.

Reality, and even right and wrong, exist outside of words. Words are just imperfect tools. This isn't an argument against language or logic. They are our most powerful tools, but they only go so far. An argument, an understanding, or a belief is like a car. It can take you across the country, but when you get to the ocean you better trade for a boat to continue further. Unfortunately, driving straight into the ocean is what we often do, because like our cars, we become attached to our own language and ideas.

Thinking And Learning

What does this mean in terms of how we should think? To begin with, we can recognize that words are seductive. Despite their undeniable usefulness, they can lead us away from truly understanding things when we focus on them, when we make them more important than the truth they are meant to point at.

For example, a man says self interest is immoral. My first reaction is to disagree, because I believe that self interest is the basis for all good, including interest in the welfare of others. However, if all I do is disagree with him, I've learned nothing, so instead I ask him to explain further. I may even pull out a dictionary and so we can agree on the definition "personal advantage or interest. "

I find that what he really means is that self interest is harmful when the person acts from a narrow sense of self. I learn something from this about the nature of the "self" and what it means to different people. Meanwhile, he sees that what I'm referring to is a "true" or deeper self interest that naturally includes concern for others. In other words, we're both right according to our definitions.

Now, this is a contradiction, since we can't both be right, in the strictest sense. To resolve this, the other man could restate his belief as "narrow self interest is immoral," or I could clarify mine as "true self interest is moral." But either way, the more important point is that we both chose to look beyond the words to the truth they are pointing at.

No matter how many words are used or how many times they are redefined, language is limited. You will not ever arrive at any final truth in words. This is the nature of language. "Self," and "interest" can be endlessly defined and redefined. Even a basic noun like "tree" is not so definitive when you're looking at a small bushy plant that has some tree-like characteristics.

But besides having indefinite definitions, words also trap you into thinking in certain ways. This is another reason we need to consider more than words. We need to look at the reality beyond them. More on that in the next lesson. In the meantime...

A Simple Exercise

1. Write down a belief that you have, then look at all the definitions that go into it, and the alternative definitions that are possible. For example, suppose you believe that "it is best to be honest." Ask yourself what "honest" means, and how others might define it. What does "best" mean? As you explain, question the words used in that explanation as well. Look for exceptions too. When is it best to lie?

This is meant to show how logic, when applied to words which can have many meanings, can lead us to many different conclusions. It isn't about changing beliefs, and it isn't an exercise in nihilism. On the other hand, if you do this often, you may change your mind on some things. When you get to the definitions of words, you get to the ideological root of beliefs, and this can result in some radical new thoughts.

Until next time,

Steve

www.RadicalNewThoughts.com