Who would have thought that such a seemingly harmless subject like logic could become both a stumbling block and an instrument of ideological struggle? However, the last hundred years testify to this.
Logic as a hostile element
To begin with, just a digression into history:
Logic was taught in all grammar schools of the Russian Empire since 1828.
In the country of victorious dialectical materialism, teaching logic was abolished everywhere in 1921 (the author of the classic textbook Chelpanov was fired from the university "for the impossibility of teaching from a Marxist position"), all those who disagree were put on a "philosophical steamer" and sent away from the triumphant Marxist dialectics.
However, then the teaching of logic in the USSR was restored at the direction of Stalin, by the decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) of December 3, 1946
Promotional video:
In the early 1950s, logic and psychology were taught in more than 600 Soviet schools. In other schools, mathematics teachers began to introduce the rules of formal logic into their subject.
After Stalin's death, the criticism of dialecticians fell upon logic, just as in the 1920s – 1930s. After the intra-Kremlin struggle, Nikita Khrushchev came to power, loyal to revolutionary ideals, therefore the fate of "bourgeois" logic and psychology in schools was a foregone conclusion. At the same time, she was excluded from most university programs. Her teaching to mathematicians was also questionable.
It was believed that logic is not able to resolve controversial situations in mathematics - only dialectical materialism is capable of this. In 1959, the obligatory teaching of logic and psychology in Soviet schools was completely curtailed.
Logic and psychology ceased to be necessary in the USSR after 1953. Including, thanks to the instructor of the Department of Schools and Education of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and subsequently to a student at Columbia University and the father of perestroika A. N. Yakovlev.
Photo: May 10, 1959 after the completion of the internship of Soviet students at Columbia University (USA).
From left to right: Yu. N. Stozhkov, Oleg D. Kalugin, Gennady P. Bekhterev, Alexander N. Yakovlev.
Yes, this is "the same" Oleg Kalugin, a traitor and a defector.
According to the memoirs of O. D. Kalugin, “of the eighteen Soviet trainees in our group, half were officers of the KGB or Soviet military intelligence known as the GRU. The other half could be considered cooperating with us. Four were assigned to Columbia University. One from the GRU, two more from the KGB. And the fourth was from the Central Committee of the CPSU, his name was Alexander Yakovlev (Kalugin O. The First Directorate. St. Martin's Press. New York, 1994. P. 26).
So that's it. He finished logic in the USSR and received an internship in the stronghold of democracy and legality. Randomness is an unknown pattern. Without logic, their relationship cannot be mastered.
What kind of harm is this, this logic?
Explanatory dictionary of V. I. Dahl gives the definition: "logic is the science of sanity, the science of how to reason correctly."
It is customary to characterize logic as a science that studies the laws of correct thinking. According to one of its principles, the correctness of the conclusion is determined by the logic of reasoning. Starting from the right base, you can come to the right conclusion. Logic is based only on reasoning, without involving intuition and experience.
Logical thinking was used by everyone when he tried to prove or disprove something, to comprehend something. Such thinking is characterized by the ability to operate with abstract concepts, concretize, generalize, synthesize, analyze, compare. A person who thinks rationally, logically, sees well the cause-and-effect relationships.
For example, the Law of Identity states that any thought (any reasoning) must necessarily be equal (identical) to itself, that is, it must be clear and precise, simple and definite.
In other words, this law prohibits confusing and substituting concepts in reasoning (using the same word in different meanings or investing the same meaning in different words), create ambiguity, etc.
The law of contradiction:
Two statements that are incompatible with each other cannot be simultaneously true. One of them is false, and possibly both. In other words, the logical law of contradiction prohibits affirming anything and denying the same at the same time.
Vasya says that Petya stole the apple. Petya claims that Vasya did it. These statements contradict each other. This means that they cannot be true at the same time. But both statements can turn out to be false if there is a third option - in fact, the apple just fell and rolled under the table.
The law of the excluded middle exists for conflicting judgments. This law states that two conflicting judgments about the same subject, at the same time and in the same respect, cannot be simultaneously true and cannot be simultaneously false.
That is, the truth of one of them necessarily means the falsity of the other, and vice versa.
The law of sufficient reason states that any thought, in order to be valid, must necessarily be substantiated by any arguments (grounds).
Moreover, these arguments must be sufficient to prove the original thought, that is, it must follow from them with necessity (the thesis must necessarily follow from the grounds).
Now imagine these laws being executed by modern globalists and mass media. Doesn't it appear? That's right, because their statements are absolutely incompatible with the laws of logic.
Logic as the enemy of "high-like"
Modern information warfare is characterized, among other things, by an explicit and undisguised struggle against the laws of logic. They are being actively replaced by the law of "high-like".
A bright and memorable name for this law is associated with the former British Prime Minister Theresa May. It was she who aggressively and persistently introduced this concept instead of the usual methods of proving and evaluating evidence.
How does high-like-like work?
So, any accusation necessary at the moment is taken, preferably against Russia, Putin and everyone who is against the fighters with bright faces.
All. The proof took place.
Don't believe me? It means that you are on the same page with the accused.
Do you mind? So you admit the accusation.
Are you laughing? This means that you do not admit your guilt, which makes your crime even more serious.
The modern world is often called postmodern. This concept includes deconstruction (in fact, destruction), and rejection of clearly defined concepts, and the introduction of virtual reality, in which the difference between the real and the imaginary disappears, when the basic meanings are replaced by simulations and "simulacra" ("copies without the original") …
And in this realm of the victorious absurdity, logic becomes absolutely alien and, moreover, a harmful instrument, to which the further, the more, a struggle is declared, not for life, but for death, up to complete destruction.
For subjects with logic do not lend themselves well to manipulation, it is difficult for them to explain why a pan on their heads is needed and why everyone needs to jump in a crowd, shouting at the same time different chants - from "Moskalyaki to Gilyak" to "who does not ride, he for the temple."
This is the kind of tomorrow that globalists create for all of us.
However, for many fighters with the regime, even the opportunity to observe this postmodern and post-human world in real time from the neighbors on the globe does not create a single brake on their own participation in the promotion of anti-Russian postmodern ideas by the "high-like-like" method.
Everyone can remember examples on their own. Unless, of course, you have abandoned logical ways of thinking.
This is such a dangerous discipline, this logic!