Logic 101: Three Aristotelian Laws of Logic for Better Communication, Decision-making
Known as The Father of Logic, Aristotle’s philosophy is rooted in reality and can help you communicate more effectively with others, figure out solutions to problems, and live a more fulfilled life.
The war on reality rages all around us, but the good news is reality always wins. Why is this good news? Because like humans, reality has a specific nature. And if you’re a budding Aristotelian thinker (or veteran), you know reality’s nature is benevolent, sound, and objectively knowable.
Contrary to mainstream belief, the uptick in community violence across the country, a weakening dollar, and deteriorating mental health in conjunction with the rise of identity politics is not due to the facts of reality, but many individuals' refusal to face reality itself.
If you’ve got any common sense in you, navigating the current dark ages of society can be a daunting process. But an immense amount of darkness gives opportunity for light to shine brighter.
And there’s nothing more enlightening than Logic.
In this introductory article, I break down a few simple and indispensable laws of Aristotelian Logic, and highlight how you can apply these principles to your own life for better thinking and better living.
If you've never studied logic before, now’s the time to start. The only way we counteract the current anti-human philosophy is to live out a philosophy that encourages human flourishing. Continue reading for the first steps on how to do that.
#1. Law of Identity
Aristotle's law of identity is axiomatic in nature, meaning it’s self-evident, therefore doesn’t need to be demonstrably proven (i.e. Existence exists). The law of identity states that everything that exists has a “specific nature.” This truth gives way to a popular phrase used by philosophers when explaining this principle in layman’s terms: “A is A.”
In terms of the Law of Identity, “A is A” means that something can’t be a host of other things. A dog can’t also be a cat. A tree can’t also be a mammal. The sun can’t also be the moon.
It seems trivial, but if you observe society on a deeper level, you’ll see a whole movement dedicated to enacting a society which goes directly against man’s identity, and therefore his nature.
The Law of Identity is essential when it comes to observing the proper nature of living things. Thomas Jefferson famously (and correctly) got the essence of man’s proper nature correct when he said all men are entitled to “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
The law of identification is a lifelong activity that takes a lot of brain power. Infants immediately begin the process as they discover the world, forming their first concretes as they learn words like “table” and “chair” and extrapolate definitions and points of difference from those identifications.
Ayn Rand’s heir, Leonard Piekoff, points out an important fact of reality in his book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand:
“When a definition is contextually revised, the new definition does not contradict the old one… Definitions are determined by the facts of reality - within the context of one’s knowledge. Both aspects of this statement are crucial: reality and the context of knowledge; existence and consciousness.”
Here lies the crux of the situation we are currently in. When forming concepts, definitions, and concretes throughout one’s life, how they hold up to reality is not only essential, but the mental soundness of the person doing the thinking is essential as well. Due to the philosophical sanitization of this modern age, when society’s attempted abolishing of reality doesn’t work, instead of understanding their opinions must be erroneous (and highly subjective) because they don’t match up with reality, they double-down on their dogma and try to bully those with fact-based arguments into submission.
Not only does the Law of Identity deal with classifications of things like animate and inanimate (a human is a living creature, he or she can not also be an inanimate object like a coffee table), in the process of applying this principle we must also take into account each identification’s “distinguishing feature.” This is known in Objectivism as The Rule of Fundamentality:
“This rule applies when the units of a concept are observed to have more than one distinctive characteristic. The definition must then state the feature that most significantly distinguishes the units; it must state the fundamental.” (Peikoff)
When focusing on humans versus animals, this “fundamental” becomes man’s ability of individual volition, his ability to reason. Lions act on instinct. If they’re hungry they hunt down an antelope and eat it. If they’re too hot, they find shade under a tree. Man has the distinct ability of reason paired with volition. We went from hunter-gatherers in primitive tribes to chefs and “foodies” who rely on complex food shipping industries for organic grass-fed beef and imported cheeses from France. Caves only provided us so much protection so we learned how to build houses, ones which could ultimately withstand a category 4 hurricane. Animals, compared to humans, lack the cognitive ability to do this.
Once again, this may seem like trivial stuff. You may be saying to yourself, of course I know I’m not a lion…
But have you seen the stories covering young women who literally identify as cats, or “furries”?
Have you read about governments from the pages of history who viewed different cultures of humans as animals, like Hitler did with Jewish people, or Stalin with Ukrainians?
Further inquiry into these examples show how easy it is to evade a philosophical law as simple as proper identification.
The Law of Identity influences our view of our fellow man, politics, philosophy, economics - our daily interactions while out in society. It deeply influenced the founding of America, and was at the philosophical root of the revolution.
For more information on man’s nature and how it should relate to law, check out this interesting read detailing Ayn Rand’s reality-based Theory of Rights at The Objective Standard.
#2. The Law of Excluded Middle
This Aristotelian law sounds complicated, and its meaning has profound implications, but it is really quite simple.
The Law of Excluded Middle states that a proposition is either true or it is false. It cannot be both true and false at the same time - there is no middle ground.
For an example of this, I always use the age-old story of Schodinger’s Cat. The famous theory posits that if you place a cat and something deadly to the cat (a nuclear substance is often used as the weapon) in a box and seal it, you wouldn’t know if the cat was dead or alive until you unsealed and opened the box. Therefore, the cat could be both alive and dead for a period of time, at the same time.
Remember earlier when I mentioned that identity is determined by both facts of reality and the expanse of one’s knowledge?
Just because we don’t know if the cat is alive or dead until we open the box doesn’t change the facts of reality. And a fact of reality is this, something cannot be both “+” AND “-”, either a proposition is true (+), or it’s not, and therefore its negation (-) is true.
The cat is either demonstrably alive or dead. We will only know which one it is when we open the box. In the meantime, just because we don’t know something, doesn’t mean reality changes to fit our whim. Zombie cats are not a thing no matter how weird The Walking Dead might get.
Note: Please don’t try to disprove this principle by attempting to become both alive and dead at the same time. It will not end well for you.
#3. The Law of Non-Contradiction
Do you see by now the way these principles of logic build on one another, giving you a sound roadmap for reasoned thinking?
The Law of Non-Contradiction, perhaps the most popular and often cited of Aristotle’s Principles of Logic, is a direct extension of The Law of Excluded Middle.
The Law of Non-Contradiction illustrates the importance of understanding the mutual exclusivity of propositions, or statements. If a person states that “P is true,” he cannot also state that “P is not true.”
Aristotle believed that this principle was the most important of all, because without it “we could not know anything that we do know.” (Gottlieb, Stanford)
This law also plays a pivotal role in distinction of characteristics, which we touched on in the Law of Identity. In Aristotle's own words, “...the principle of non-contradiction is a principle of scientific inquiry, reasoning and communication that we cannot do without.” (Gottlieb, Stanford)
I often think of a popular saying while ruminating on the Law of Non-Contradiction. The quote comes from an old Dan Aykroyd movie, and his line has become a popular phrase people recite while debating, “Just the facts, ma’am.”
While the saying in itself is simple yet brilliant, and can immediately cause someone in argument to check their premise to see if they’re thinking properly, politicians, as they always do, have developed a comeback to this statement that is detrimental to progress.
“I have a different set of facts than you.”
This comeback is often uttered during debates featuring opposing political figures, and is a prominent political saying in hispanic countries, who also parade around a series of subjective philosophical principles, much like the US, leading to a breakdown in society and an unwinnable war against reality.
One cannot have multiple, different sets of facts that are both true, and don’t negate the other at the same time. Quantitative easing and credit expansion either weakens the dollar or it doesn't (hint, it does).
Through scientific inquiry and technological advancements in anthropology, archeologists can now determine that many skeletons that were once thought to be male because they were buried with armor and weapons, and exhibited battle wounds, are actually female. There were never two different sets of facts that coexisted together as truth. One presumed fact ended up being proven wrong while the other fact it was proven with was always right, even if it took us some time to figure out. This realization doesn’t mean that until technological advancement came along, the skeletons were male. They were always female, the expanse of our knowledge simply had to catch up to the facts of reality.
This realization is brilliantly covered in Adrienne Mayor’s book, The Amazons, which eloquently dispels myth from reality in regards to the ancient, highly misunderstood culture. I’ll be reviewing the book here at Freedom Journal soon.
Closing:
When first learning about these laws of logic, they can seem daunting. I encourage you to check out the sources I list below, all of which are of high quality, and feature experts on the subject who dive deep into Aristotelian Logic.
Whether you’re debating with someone or alone in deep philosophical thought, start applying these introductory principles to your own thinking and the thinking of others immediately. These “First Principles” are the path to better thinking. The path of better thinking leads to better understanding. And thankfully, better living.
P.S. Take this a step further by reading one of my most popular articles and familiarizing yourself with common logical fallacies, plus how to combat them in everyday situations! Click Here for Common Logical Fallacies
Sources:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/
Freedom Journal runs solely on voluntary donations. If you’d like to help me continue sharing inspirational, thought-provoking content there are a couple of ways you can contribute.
Donate via Stripe if a credit card is your preferred method.
You can also donate via PayPal here.
Any amount is greatly appreciated :)
Live rebelliously,
-Rebecca-