The world is increasingly becoming divided, with each of us drifting further apart, quick to judge and categorize others. Social media has exacerbated this issue, creating echo chambers that resemble small fiefdoms of personal beliefs. Barack Obama once pointed out the crucial need for empathy in healing our fragmented world. In an interview, he highlighted the absence of empathy, noting that regardless of our differences, we all face similar challenges: raising and loving our families, earning a living, and maintaining our health. This idea transcends the divides in our polarized society. Even those who seem diametrically opposed to us share fundamental human needs like family, sleep, food, and employment.

The Obamas' latest film production echoes this theme, depicting an America torn apart by societal polarization. A pivotal scene features a survivalist and a person of color in a standoff, with a potentially violent outcome looming. However, an academic intervenes, urging the survivalist to recognize their shared humanity, their mutual need to protect and care for their families. This moment underlines the potential of empathy as a tool for mending societal rifts.

But is empathy alone the solution to our fragmented society? In theory, yes, but in practice, it may be too demanding. Empathy requires us to fully share in another's feelings, a challenging feat. For example, observing the new coalition forming the New Zealand government – comprising conservatives, neoliberals, and demagogues – I find it impossible to empathize with their perspectives. Their views on the country's direction evoke feelings of disgust in me, especially when considering Winston Peters's contempt for dissenting opinions. Sympathy, defined as feeling pity for someone else's misfortune, also doesn't apply here.

What remains, then, is logic. In Logic in the Wild, I argue that logic provides a neutral ground for dialectical inquiry. It enables us to engage with differing viewpoints and find common interests, decisions, or beliefs without the necessity of shared emotions. Logic allows us to appreciate Obama's insight: despite our ideological or cultural differences, we have more in common than we might realize. It requires us to suspend personal beliefs and strive for constructive communication. While Obama is right in advocating for more empathy, we don't necessarily need to transform everyone into empaths. Instead, recognizing the unifying power of logic can be a first step toward finding common ground amidst differences. Perhaps logical interaction within the community can even pave the way toward developing empathy. Let's give logic a chance!