Logic is one of the most progressive humanities of the second half of the 20th century. It is a developed scientific discipline with dozens of directions. Each of the logics (classical, dialectical, mathematical, non-classical, etc.) has its own subject and scope of application, but they are all based on the classical logic founded by Aristotle. First of all, acquaintance with logic teaches us to think accurately and clearly express our thoughts. Many people are unable to connect two words at all. Others speak, but so incoherently and vaguely that you will not understand anything. Logic contributes to the formation of coherent and clear speech. Logic fosters the ability to substantiate your ideas and decisions and convince other people. If you are able to substantiate your thought, the solution to a particular issue, then your speech will be not only clear, but also convincing. Whatever occupation you do, it is often a necessary condition for its success.
One can agree with the ambiguous use of the term "logic", because such an application of this term contradicts both the history of philosophy and scientific usage in general. N. Kondakov in his "Logical Dictionary" indicates that the term "logic" is used in three different senses. A. Lalande also points to three meanings of the term “logic” in his widely known dictionary of philosophical terms.
It is equally important that acquaintance with logic gradually forms the habit of analyzing one's own and other people's reasoning. Logic also equips us with the means that allow us to detect, accurately identify and eliminate the error of reasoning. It helps us to cope with demagoguery and sophistry, relieves us of that earthy innocence that easily pushes us into the arms of sweet-tongued swindlers, including those engaged in science and writing. For example, they turn to you with the following reasoning: "I am a person, and you are not me, therefore, you are not a person." And even if you feel that something is wrong here, can you adequately argue? Hardly.
At best, burknet something like "You are a fool!" and walk away with a sense of intellectual humiliation. Familiarity with logic will give you the opportunity to determine what this reasoning is, what requirements it should satisfy, and which of these requirements is violated here. By pointing out all this, you shame a demagogue or an ignoramus, and already he will leave you, sprinkling ashes on his head. It may sound strange, but I would really like the knowledge of logic to teach people to fully use the potential of discussions and conversations, to avoid an argument, because the truth is not born in a dispute … Both in everyday life and in professional activities, we often have to enter into polemics for various reasons. As a rule, we do not know how to argue, and our clashes most often end in a squabble, shouting, and even a fight. Moreover, the dispute does not lead to clarification of the truth,but only helps to establish one of two false statements. Having become familiar with logic, you will learn how to correctly defend your opinion, refute the erroneous beliefs of your opponent, find compromises, expose unscrupulous tricks and tricks that lead not only from the truth, but also from the truth. The same is the case with the character of thought. To begin with, a thought is called true if it corresponds to its subject, i.e. represents an object, a situation, a state of affairs as they exist in reality, by itself. If the thought does not correspond to its object, distorts it, it is called false. For example, the thought that the Russian composer A. P. Borodin was a chemist, is true, since Borodin really belongs to a number of works and discoveries in the field of chemistry. However, the idea that bananas grow on an apple tree will be false,because it gives a distorted idea of the apple tree.
The logical correctness of reasoning is its compliance with the rules, the laws of logic. If you rely on true data and reason correctly, then you will always get a true conclusion. This logic guarantees. Unfortunately, one can reason correctly, but at the same time proceed from false premises. In this case, you can come to any conclusion - both true and false. As they say, anything follows from a lie. For example, if you accepted the premise "All tigers eat grass", then from it you can draw both a true conclusion: "Some herbivorous stripes", and a false one - "Some herbivores are tigers." It is important to keep in mind the following: logic cannot say whether certain premises are true - this is the task of specific sciences and everyday practice - but it helps us make our reasoning correct. If you lean on a lie,your reasoning can take you anywhere. If you lean on the truth, correct reasoning will lead you only to the truth. In our pragmatic age, when faced with something new for themselves, people first of all ask: "Why do I need this?" Alas, simple curiosity is gradually disappearing, and the eternal pursuit of a career, success, just a piece of bread leaves almost no time and energy for classes that do not bring immediate benefit. So why? Why should I read this book? Perhaps the following considerations will seem worthwhile to you.and the eternal pursuit of a career, success, just a piece of bread leaves almost no time and energy for activities that do not bring immediate benefit. So why? Why should I read this book? Perhaps the following considerations will seem worthwhile to you.and the eternal pursuit of a career, success, just a piece of bread leaves almost no time and energy for activities that do not bring immediate benefit. So why? Why should I read this book? Perhaps the following considerations will seem worthwhile to you.
And yet, most importantly, logic develops the habit of thinking. Modern life forces a person to know a lot, so the systems of school and higher education are built in such a way as to put as much information as possible in the student's head. But they, as a rule, do not teach to think, do not seek to develop this precious human ability. Therefore, many do not like and do not know how to think. Instead of thinking and finding our own solution to certain problems, we willingly rely on the opinion of some television broadcaster, friends or acquaintances. Of course, it is difficult to think, tense thinking takes as much energy as a miner or hammerhead spends. But thinking is necessary if you do not want to live your whole life as a doll that is pulled by the strings by dexterous manipulators. And when "thinking" becomes a habitit starts to give pleasure. So the athlete, crunching his spine, pouring sweat, with moans develops his muscles. But then, what a delight the play of these muscles gives him, when every cell of the body sings about the joy of bodily existence!
The striving for "truth", the search for "true being" is characteristic of many human cultures; and therefore - when the question arises about the unique features of European culture - it is impossible to distinguish it from the multitude of others by just "striving for truth", just as it is impossible to identify its real "representatives" by this feature. For all those who have thought to be puzzled by the search for "truth," in one way or another, have found what they might consider a satisfactory result of their search.
People who use the laws of correct thinking in their conclusions and statements are classified as rational. Well, and people who in their knowledge and interpretation of the world around them use intuition and emotions, as well as fantasies and representations based on this, belong to the category of intuitive.
Promotional video:
Initially, all people, without exception, acquire in the course of training and education the habit of elementary ("tape-recorder") thinking, which is mostly based on intuition, emotions and their own ideas about the world around them. This habitual thinking remains to accompany some people throughout their entire life, while an extremely small number of people achieve the ability to perceive the world and its order of things in the world properly - correctly. It is not easy to start reorienting from habitual thinking towards correct thinking. The complexity of this turn is due to the accompanying need to rethink a number of life values. Moreover, as we can often observe, the true need for correct thinking occurs only in rare cases. Namely,in classical science or in an environment where a decision should be made regarding the resolution or prevention of possible conflicts, disputes or disagreements. Logic, of course, accompanies the natural sciences (mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.), but the study of this section is not included in the task of this article, therefore, we will confine ourselves to an attempt to clarify the place and significance of correct thinking in the practical life of a person.
First of all, it is worth pushing aside the veil of imposed severity and exactingness towards a person, admitting that people cannot constantly use rational thinking, let alone correct thinking. Due to the current circumstances, people are “doomed” to think intuitively, following patterns that are familiar not only to themselves, but also to the environment with which they have to deal every day. This means that people think the way they think is right "in their own way." It is from this given point of view that we could, answering the question: "And who is more right than the one who is right in his own way?", Answer that "He is right who thinks not of himself."
What is “inside” of one does not necessarily go into “inside” of another, since another person gives birth to his own “inside”, which is completely impossible with a rational approach, where there will always be words that can replace questionable gestures and will not allow misinterpretations and other interpretations …
People can afford to wash in the usual way, which has nothing to do with logic, only if they pursue their personal goal in the circle of their like-minded people, whose values are limited or focused on solving a certain internal problem, which is equally represented and understood by everyone. who interacts within the outlined circle. But, if the activities of such people go beyond the specified circle, they will nevertheless be forced, willingly or unwillingly, to reckon with the laws of correct thinking, scientific logic. There is nothing terrible in this, as some are trying to present such a state of affairs. The only thing is that habitual, intuitive thinking is unsuitable in scientific discussions or in rational knowledge. But there are not so many such discussions in everyday life. Everyday relationships are completely filled and saturated with intuitive, emotional and fantasy …
In the science of logic itself, it is argued that the intuitive and the rational do not intersect. If two are in different positions, no consensus is possible. The difficulty of the situation is that one of them cannot understand the conclusions of the other. Guess yourself who can't. The conclusion is simple: if a person wants to master the truth, then one should turn to rational thinking, to scientific logic. People who just want to amuse themselves, their imagination and surrender to the will of emotions, can remain as they are and life itself chooses the latter, because it comes easily …
In the stormy stream of life changes, one thing remains unchanged: today, as always, it is important to have the ability, not only to acquire knowledge, but also to use it to solve a huge number of extremely complex problems. The ability to solve problems that have not personal, but social value depends on how intelligently we act, how often we act as we should, and not on whether we act in one way or another, guided only by emotions and intuition, following not what you need, but simply what you really want. The misadventures and intricacies of life's circumstances have become so clever and full of cunning that, even speaking of the need to acquire and use knowledge, we still have to state the need for correct knowledge and its correct use. The quantity and quality of knowledge are not already the same,just as the quality of knowledge is not necessarily correct knowledge. The fact is that knowledge, when it is not correct, can be inherent in many qualities, for example, "insufficient", "incomplete", etc. Correct thinking, which allows you to achieve correct knowledge, is the greatest value that cannot be imposed by force the fact that not everyone is equally predisposed and capable of it. In this regard, awkward attempts to present the structure of a particular human society as aristo-democratic can be justified by the fact that in any society there are aristocrats of thought, whose thoughts, thoughts, thinking and knowledge are, albeit not always in demand, but the only correct … Equally, as there is still a part of society, a demos that is guided (or who is convenient for the time being,be guided) exclusively by our own understanding of things and truth - "our truth."
Nevertheless, since ancient times, people have been interested in ways to correctly build and substantiate their own opinions, they have strived for a form of presentation of their beliefs that would look the most convincing. In this regard, the need naturally arises to create a certain list of rules, laws and norms, behind which you need to build your own reasoning, in the case when they claim to be called “correct. We do not dare to assert that the truth is not comprehensible by intuition, and also to deny that there is nothing true in the emotional manifestation of a person. But the problem is precisely that such "truths" only allow one to find their own justification, but they do not make the justification of anything acceptable by general recognition, sufficient to remain just as right before the people and nation.what a person can seem to himself. But even this need to cultivate in oneself not personal, but public recognition, was distorted by the institution of the right to consider the winner who won the most votes during the voting. We do not explore in this article the history of the origin of this kind of voting, as a result of which it was not quality that won, but quantity. However, it should be borne in mind that according to the structure of the social and political life of the Dzhars, who used the voting system purely in order to proclaim universal consent, the one who received the largest number of votes could not be recognized as right only because those who remained in the minority could not be recognized as wrong. This speaks of the correct understanding of things by the Jarians, who adhered to an aristo-democatic structure in a society in which, demos,guided by intuition and emotions, he was forced to follow those who are guided by reason and correct knowledge, that is, logic.
With all this, one should not forget that just as the ability to speak existed long before grammar, so the art of thinking correctly existed before the emergence of the science of logic. There are many people who think and reason correctly, without turning to a special science for help and not counting on this help. However, teachers of logic at all times have argued that logic, as such, does not pretend to be of exceptional importance for a person, and also never claimed that the absence of logic would make life impossible. Another thing is what such a life can turn into? Intuitive logic, as a rule, successfully copes with its tasks in everyday life, but it is completely insufficient for criticizing incorrect reasoning. Is the person thinking correctly when he says: “If barium were a metal,he would conduct an electric current; barium conducts electric current; therefore it is metal? " Most often, based on logical intuition, they answer: correctly, barium is a metal, and it conducts a current. This answer, however, is incorrect. Logic deals not only with the connections of statements in correct conclusions, but also with other problems. Among the latter are the meaning and significance of language expressions, various relationships between concepts, definition of concepts, probabilistic and statistical reasoning, sophisms and paradoxes, etc. But the main and dominant theme of formal logic is, undoubtedly, the analysis of the correctness of reasoning, the study of the “coercive power of speech ", As the founder of this science, the ancient Greek philosopher and logician Aristotle, said.barium is a metal and it conducts current. This answer, however, is incorrect. Logic deals not only with the connections of statements in correct conclusions, but also with other problems. Among the latter are the meaning and significance of language expressions, various relationships between concepts, definition of concepts, probabilistic and statistical reasoning, sophisms and paradoxes, etc. But the main and dominant theme of formal logic is, undoubtedly, the analysis of the correctness of reasoning, the study of the “coercive power of speech ", As the founder of this science, the ancient Greek philosopher and logician Aristotle, said.barium is a metal and it conducts current. This answer, however, is incorrect. Logic deals not only with the connections of statements in correct conclusions, but also with other problems. Among the latter are the meaning and significance of language expressions, various relationships between concepts, definition of concepts, probabilistic and statistical reasoning, sophisms and paradoxes, etc. But the main and dominant theme of formal logic is, undoubtedly, the analysis of the correctness of reasoning, the study of the “coercive power of speech ", As the founder of this science, the ancient Greek philosopher and logician Aristotle, said.probabilistic and statistical reasoning, sophisms and paradoxes, etc. But the main and dominant theme of formal logic is undoubtedly the analysis of the correctness of reasoning, the study of the "forced power of speech", as the founder of this science, the ancient Greek philosopher and logician Aristotle, said.probabilistic and statistical reasoning, sophisms and paradoxes, etc. But the main and dominant theme of formal logic is undoubtedly the analysis of the correctness of reasoning, the study of the "forced power of speech", as the founder of this science, the ancient Greek philosopher and logician Aristotle, said.
Another example: “If it rained, the earth would be wet; but there is no rain; so the earth is not wet. " This reasoning is usually intuitively judged to be correct, but a little reasoning is enough to be sure that it is not. It is true that the ground is always wet in rain; but if there is no rain, it does not at all follow that it is dry: the ground may simply be watered or be wet after the snow melts. The reasoning again follows the wrong pattern: “If the first, then the second; but the first is not there; hence, there is no second. " This scheme can lead from true premises to an erroneous conclusion: “If a person is an artist, he draws; a person draws; hence, the person is an artist. " These simple examples show that logic learned spontaneously, even in ordinary situations, can be unreliable. The skill of correct thinking does not imply any theoretical knowledge,the ability to explain why something is done the way it is and not otherwise. In addition, intuitive logic itself is usually defenseless in the face of criticism. And in conclusion, I would like to ask: “Tell me, why was formal logic erased from the school curriculum into a quiet one? Why have the hours been reduced by logic for students of the law faculty of a number of universities? " Thousands of academic hours are allocated for various little-smiled heresies, but logic - the most important subject - is not? The basics of logic are more than realistic to learn in 20-30 hours. Thousands of academic hours are allocated for various little-smiled heresies, but logic - the most important subject - is not? The basics of logic are more than realistic to learn in 20-30 hours. Thousands of academic hours are allocated for various little-smiled heresies, but logic - the most important subject - is not? The basics of logic are more than realistic to learn in 20-30 hours.
Logic is the most important subject and this is not an exaggeration. Logic is more important than mathematics, more important than the Russian language and even more important than physical education. At the same time, logic is a surprisingly compact discipline. Logic would help the younger generation to avoid shame and mistakes in their actions, would teach them to treat the manifestations of life correctly, to make the right decisions. Logic would suggest a simple idea to them: the statement “some drugs taste disgusting” does not imply the statement “the more disgusting the taste, the more useful”.
So, why is logic, despite all its phenomenal usefulness, not taught in schools and reduced in universities? The answer is incredibly simple: for the same reasons that slaves are not allowed to own firearms. Dangerous. The ideology of our educational institutions is not built on teaching to "prove" one's statements, not on teaching to think correctly, and not even on teaching to "justify" correctly. Moreover, the overwhelming majority at the secondary and even the highest level of education continues to substantiate their assertions on evidence drawn by someone else, answers prepared by someone, in fact, stealing them, and not nurturing and not speculating. However, one fact alone - the lack of logic in the number of school subjects - clearly showsthat education in a modern secondary school (with the exception of elementary grades) is more of an expensive clowning, a place for passing adolescents than "obtaining the necessary knowledge." In this regard, modern universities are faced with the task of not just giving students a higher education, but also improving their secondary education in certain issues … And yet, one must not forget that logic, as a science of correct thinking, is not intended to indicate the place where one could find truth, but only shows us in what direction and in what way it should be sought.as the science of correct thinking is not intended to indicate the place where truth could be found, but only indicates to us in what direction and in what way it should be sought.as the science of correct thinking is not intended to indicate the place where truth could be found, but only indicates to us in what direction and in what way it should be sought.