When one questions or rejects something while employing that which is being questioned or rejected in their rejection of said thing, said person is engaging in a performative contradiction. Performative contradictions are, as the name suggests, contradictory. They are contradictory in that they are self-refuting, meaning that they create a contradiction, and the contradiction that they create is inherent to itself. Being contradictory, performative contradictions are thereby called illogical. An example of a performative contradiction is the utterance of the statement: “there are no such thing as words.” This statement is self-refuting, for it is using words to assert that there are no such thing as words, which is contradictory to say the least.
With regard to logic: when logic itself is the subject of a performative contradiction, I do believe that a case can be made to defend performative contradictions, as insane as this may sound. Within this essay, I will put forth this defense, a defense which follows from the critique of performative contradictions with respect to logic on the basis that they utilize logic to critique logic, and are therefore contradictory and illogical. However, this is not to say that hypothetical rejectors of logic will be able to reasonably partake in rational discussion, for such cannot be the case. Their critiques of things within the bounds of logic cannot land. However, at the same time, for the people who affirm logic, the outward critiques of the anti-logic position likewise cannot land.
If one were to hypothetically attack logic---for whatever reason---hence making a critique of logic, which is a performative contradiction, they are operating outside of the bounds of logic in that they reject it, even if they do still utilize it. They are not bound by logic, as any critique of them and their position will not land, for they rely on logic, which they are not bound by. Critiquing them for using logic while rejecting it is something that condemns them on the basis of logic, which they reject. Being unbounded by logic, it will not matter that they are acting illogical.
Perhaps a metaphor may best illustrate the point I am trying to get across. Consider an NFL game, wherein a fan runs onto the field between plays, takes the football, and runs into the endzone. It would not matter than the fan took the ball and ran with it before the play started—constituting a false start—for the fan is not bound by the rules of the game. The fan may be playing the game, but they are not part of the game, and are thus not bound by the rules of the game. However, it is worth noting that, unlike NFL football, operating within logic is open to almost all, while only an extremely slim number of people who want to play NFL football are able to.
This potential issue that I outlined in the prior paragraph may poke a hole in my analogy. As such, I am forced to adjust my analogy. Now, let us hold all other things unchanged, and suppose that the fan who ran onto the field was none other than the recently retired Tom Brady, who would have otherwise been able to play, but retired, and in doing so decided not to play professional football—much like a person who had the ability to operate within the realm of logic, but decided not to bound themselves to logic. In the now tweaked analogy, Tom Brady, who turned away from football, is not bound by the rules of the game, much like a person who turned away from logic is not bound by the rules of logic.
Performative contradictions involving logic are very unique compared to other performative contradictions, and the reason for this is that for all other instances of performative contradiction, logic can be used to display why the performative contradiction is illogical, but in the case of logic, this is not necessarily true. To give an example, if one performs a performative contradiction by stating “I am dead,” they can be refuted on the basis that what they said is self-refuting, for them asserting they are dead is something that requires them to be alive in order to do, and in saying they are dead, they are thereby proving that they are alive. However, when logic is rejected by the person who is performing the performative contradiction, refuting the performative contradiction on the basis that it is illogical holds no weight if the concept of logic is entirely rejected. Yet, this would evidently put the rejector of logic outside the bounds of rational discussion, for by rejecting logic, they, by extension, reject rational discussion. They would rather occupy a place of irrationality.
Despite defending a position that is skeptical of logic, I myself am not a skeptic of logic. However, I do see the flaws with logical discourse that automatically rejects the rejection of logic on the basis for being illogical, for rejecting the rejection of logic on this grounds is not sufficient, as I have demonstrated herein. Logic cannot justify logic if logic is the thing in question, and to assert that this could be the case is to employ circular logic, which, when analyzed in a logical manner can be rightfully dismissed, for circular logic violates the laws of logic.
As is evidenced by the Munchhausen Trilemna, and discussed in greater detail on my post “Ruminations on the Munchhausen Trilemna, Reason, Faith, and God,” unless one is to go outside of the bounds of logic, one cannot prove any foundational belief in a non-fallacious manner. In that essay, I propose something that can be invoked to justify a foundational belief (such as logic), that being: faith with transcends rationality. Likewise, in my essay “Escaping Logic,” I identify the postulation of the existence of God as something that justifies logic in particular, in a manner that is not logically fallacious.
Ultimately, I believe that it is not illogical in and of itself to question or reject logic, nor is it illogical to go beyond logic. However, I believe that the ladder is superior to the former, for the ladder sets the stage for the use of logic, (and also justifies it in a manner that isn’t illogical) while the former goes away from logic, despite utilizing it to do so. Alternatively, one can choose neither—which is what the overwhelming majority of people choose—and in doing so can continue to use logic, but I do not believe that they would be justified in their use of logic, for justifying logic through logic is circular logic, which is inherently illogical. Moreover, to say that logic does not need to be justified is to either arbitrarily privilege it, or assert it as being axiomatic, which itself is not logical. However, if we were to believe that logic is an objective unshakable pillar of the fabric of reality, as I generally believe, then the anti-logic position cannot hold any weight. However I believe that to declare logic objective cannot be done by any sort of reasoning without an appeal to God.
I would recommend reading the two aforementioned essays of mine: “Escaping Logic,” and “Ruminations on the Munchhausen Trilemma, Reason, Faith, and God. In these two essays, I more elaborately explain why I believe that justifying the use of logic and grounding logic requires one to go outside of logic, and furthermore, why justifying the use of logic and grounding logic is even necessary to begin with. My ideas found therein are very interconnected with the overall topic at hand herein. In a sense, they both deal with the same concept, but they approach it from somewhat different angles.
Thank you so much for reading,
-- Eli Gardenswartz
Comentarios