Laws of logic

â € ‹â €‹ â € ‹â €‹ â € ‹â €‹ â € ‹

â € ‹â €‹ â € ‹â €‹ â € ‹â €‹ â € ‹

â € ‹â €‹ â € ‹â €‹ â € ‹â €‹ â € ‹

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ It is pleasant to talk with a logical person and it is easier to negotiate. If we know, remember and follow the laws of logic, more decent people will want to deal with us, people will understand our articles better. We are interested. Is it logical? Then let’s get started.

In logic, at least Aristotelian logic, there are only four laws — the law of identity, the law of sufficient reason, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. These laws can be formulated in different words, simpler and more complex, in relation to scientific research or in relation to everyday life and communication. In this article, the laws of logic are explained in simple language and in relation to life situations.

Law of Identity

The Law of Identity requires us to talk about the same things when we talk together. Therefore, define concepts. If in a conversation with a person you use words that are important to you, about which the interlocutor may have a different idea, explain what you mean and agree with the interlocutor what you will mean together by this word or words.

Keep the scope and content of the concept. For carefully thinking people, each concept corresponds to only one, specific content. If we have determined the basic properties of the subject that we are talking about and called it a certain term, then by this term (concept) we must mean only and exactly what we have defined.

Do not substitute concepts: if the basic properties of the subject in question remain the same, then this subject can no longer be called by other terms, and the term used can no longer imply a different content.

In a conversation, the concept should be used as we agreed, and nothing else. If you want to put new content into the concept, then warn the interlocutor about this and agree on a new scope of the concept.

Law of Sufficient Reason

If you want your words to have weight, explain why you think so. They said — argue! The Law of Sufficient Reason states: only that position is true, which has confirmations, under which evidence lies, that is, when, in response to all doubts about the truth of a thought or statement, their convincing grounds are put forward.

In a conversation, if in doubt, do not take a word, ask for confirmation: how is it known, who saw it, why you need to believe it. You can only believe what has a serious, real reason.

What is not sufficient reason?

• What happened before is not necessarily the cause. If a black cat crosses your path, it is not obvious that you failed the exam because of it. Maybe you just need to be well prepared.
• A word, a promise is not yet a guarantee: you can trust some people’s word, some you shouldn’t. Promise does not mean marriage …
• The fact that someone really wants is not a sufficient reason. Crying pussy in the hallway, She has great grief. Evil people poor kitty Do not allow to steal sausages.
• Appeal to the majority. Just because everyone is doing something doesn’t mean you should be doing it too. Firstly, hardly everyone does something — rather, the majority. And even if the majority lives without thinking, does not care about their health, is not interested in development — for you this is nothing more than information about the lives of others. You have your own life, be responsible for yourself!
• Just because it was like this before, doesn’t mean it has to be like this in the future. Before, your kids didn’t clean up after themselves. And today, perhaps, it is time for them to start doing this.

Similarly, appeals to authority, to tradition, to mercy, and other already obvious manipulations are not sufficient grounds. And remember: any of your justification is not logically convincing if there are serious counterarguments to it.

Law of contradiction

The law of contradiction — you can not say opposite, incompatible things about the same thing. Decide what you want to say, or specify the context, the conditions under which it will be fair to say completely different things about the same thing.

You can’t write at the beginning of an article: “Every person is a person,” and at the end: “You are not born a person, you become a person.”

Law of the excluded middle

If we say two contradictory things about the same thing, then in the case of the truth of one, it turns out that the other is not true. There is no third.

Socrates is mortal or Socrates is immortal? If we know that Socrates died by drinking a cup of hemlock by the decision of the court of Athens, then Socrates is mortal, and one cannot speak of his immortality. There is no third. If someone says at the same time that Socrates is immortal, since he is remembered even after his death, then we are talking about something else — not about the mortality of the physical body of Socrates, but about the significance of what he produced.

If your children quarreled and one of them claims that the other hit him on purpose, on purpose, then you can explain to them: “The accusation of intentional blows is a very serious accusation. Anyone who intentionally beats children should be taken to the police. If you say that your brother hit you on purpose, intentionally, on purpose, then you and I need to take him to the police, write a statement about this and substantiate your words. If your words are true, he will be tried and, most likely, sent to a colony. However, keep in mind that this is a serious matter for both of you. Because you will be required to substantiate your accusations, and if you cannot substantiate your words, then you will already be put on trial, you will be tried for slander, for deliberate untruth. The accusation of intentionality, of being on purpose, is indeed a very serious accusation. Think about it, do you really need to claim that you are sure that your brother hit you on purpose, and not by accident?