I'm fascinated by logic, largely because language fascinates me, and there’s no logic without language. But what intrigues me even more is observing people driven primarily by feelings, unable to follow a logical argument to its conclusion.
To be logical is to make sense—to reason in a sane, rational sequence. The law of non-contradiction often comes into play, stating that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. We have Aristotle to thank for this.
But what really interests me is when an argument or statement is self-stultifying—when it invalidates itself.
For example:
A few years ago in the UK, a young, hot-shot hypnotist joined our group in the Hilton lobby and proclaimed, “There are too many rules in hypnosis! We should start again, and throw out all the rules!” The group erupted in laughter when I asked him if that was Rule Number One.
On another occasion, someone told me I was judgmental and had no right to judge anyone. I asked if anyone had the right to be judgmental, and when he answered “No,” I told him to stop judging me and calling me judgmental.
A police trainer once declared that nobody could make a definite statement about anything. I asked if that included the definite statement he’d just made, and his blank, confused expression was priceless.
More examples:
A salesman said that my comments offended him, and nobody had the right to offend anyone. I replied that I found what he said to be offensive.
A woman I know once chided me for comparing two solutions to a problem, saying that nobody can claim one thing is better than another. “It’s intolerant!” she exclaimed. I asked if it would be better if I stopped saying some things are better, and she responded “Yes!”—completely unaware that her own point had unraveled.
Later, I thought of how funny it would have been to offer her cat food instead of prime rib. After all, if nothing is better than anything else…
Postmodernists are some of the worst offenders in the logic department, insisting that we can’t know the meaning of a book because we’re not the author. And yet, they write entire books about how we can’t know the meaning of books, so I suppose their books operate in a different universe.
It’s actually quite enlightening (and often entertaining) to point out the logical flaws in what people say. There are countless examples in daily life, just waiting for you to catch, and gently correct.
In today’s world of moral relativism, I often hear people questioning the concept of truth. But as the Greek philosophers showed, truth is that which corresponds to reality. There’s no such thing as “your truth” or “my truth”—only the truth.
When someone claims there’s no such thing as absolute truth, I ask if their statement is absolutely true, which can lead to hilarious verbal back-pedaling.
And this isn’t a minor issue.
An airline pilot might believe it’s fine to fly a 747 upside down because “that’s his truth”—which is both ludicrous and dangerous. Imagine the consequences if pilots, surgeons, architects, or pharmacists started denying the existence of absolute truth.
The entire domain of science relies not on subjective feelings, but on verifiable evidence that is both consistent and coherent.
Identifying as a cat doesn’t make you a cat. It probably means you’re delusional. (And when I refer to myself as a 5,000-year-old wizard, I’m only joking.)
- Mike Mandel
(Chris here: Did you know that Mike's entire "Mandel Trilogy" hypnosis bundle is included in the Brain Software Syndicate. The price to join is ridiculously low.)