I find logic to be such an interesting topic. After all, without logic, people would not be able to make coherent points. I mean, duh, if somebody says an unreasonable argument they will, most of the time, be ignored. But still, there are some things, inherent in logic that to me, make no sense (however paradoxical this may seem).
One of the most common problems I find with logic is that, there are so many example’s of things that can have more than two plausible logical explanations.
For example: The other day a friend of mine, Ignacio, and myself went to see Will Ferrel’s “Stranger than Fiction”. The movie was great. It was interesting, it was funny and it was even smart. Once we finished the movie, we started talking about it. I said I found the movie to be “cool” because it shows you how little things in life can change the course of your life. I asked Ignacio “if you were to advance the time of your wristwatch by five minutes, how do you know that your life would not change drastically for the good or for the bad?” I further expanded this example to him, by explaining to him, in a logical fashion, the way I viewed life in general “To me it seems that life is uncaring. Life is not good. Life is not bad. Life just is. There is no such thing as a conscious aspect to life in which things happen for a reason. This is why I believe it Is very important to have a positive outlook in life. If life is uncaring, and life is basically what you make of it, then your perspective on how and why things happen is vital. If you tend to be a person of a pessimistic mentality, you will, more likely than not look at the same action as a person with an optimistic outlook in life and make a pessimistic conclusion that will, overall, make your life bitterer than the optimistic person. This is why, I believe, minor actions in life and the ways you view them are very important.” He agreed with me thus far. I mean after all, it was a logical statement (I believe). The disagreement came in my next statement, which I also believed I sated in a logical fashion:
“ Yes Ignacio, minor actions can change your life drastically, even if every action you do in life is selfish.” To this statement Ignacio asked “What are you talking about?’ I elaborated: “Whether you help a poor person by giving him money or choose to keep the money, both actions are selfish. If you give the money, It will make you feel food that you gave that person the money. If you decide not to give the poor person the money, it was because it did not make you feel good to give the person money.”
Ignacio was in deep disagreement with my reasoning, to which he argued, in what I also find to be a logical fashion: “I don’t believe that. I believe that when you give money, or do something that can be considered a selfless act, it truly is just that, a selfless act. You give the money to that person because you are a person that is morally aware of what is right and wrong, and helping a poor person in this case, is a moral obligation. Yes, feeling good is a side effect of doing a good action, but I will not give money to a poor person to make me feel good about myself? No.”
I can continue the conversation by offering the way we re-refuted our responses to each other reasoning. But I will not, for length related reasons.
My question is this: How can logic hold is stature as a source of something that makes sense, when to arguments can have the same logical structure and make equal sense. Isn’t this a flaw of logical reasoning? One would think, or at least I do, that there is only one ultimate truth in any subject. Either the universe was created by God or not, we are either selfish in the actions we do or we are not, etc. You may know the answer, but you can never be 100% it is the ultimate truth. If logic is the only way to achieve answers to such question, and two logical arguments have the same weight, there are flaws in logic, or is there not?