Logic and Empathy: Navigating Social Landscapes

While acknowledging the speculative nature of these ideas, I find the perspective of viewing logic through the lens of social and psychological evolution quite inspiring. It helps frame its influence and function within our communities. This week, as I delve into the notion that logic is intrinsically linked to human activity, my journey is one of exploration rather than justification. My goal isn't to establish or defend theories about the origins of logic but to challenge myself to view logic from a fresh perspective. Trained primarily by mathematicians in formal logical methods, I'm now venturing to consider logic from an entirely different viewpoint.

Today, I revisit a useful comparison when contemplating logic's value within the community: its contrast with empathy. We are complex creatures, possessing brains capable of imagination, reasoning, and foresight, coupled with minds that experience a rich tapestry of emotions. It's crucial to not only understand our own feelings, which is a complex task in itself, but also to comprehend the emotions of others. Before engaging in activities like courting, negotiating, or collaborating, it's beneficial to grasp how others feel about us and their general emotional state. Sorting through one's own emotions is challenging enough; attempting to understand the feelings of others is even more so. This challenge intensifies with lesser familiarity and grows exponentially across cultural, spatial, or temporal divides.

Empathy demands that we not only understand but also deeply resonate with another person's perspective. It's the act of stepping into their shoes and experiencing their viewpoint. This requirement, I believe, is immensely challenging, especially in the age of social media. Our social circles now span hundreds, often including distant or unknown individuals. Continual exposure to the avatars of these distant connections leaves us struggling to empathize. In an ideal world, we would transcend social media's barriers and recognize the shared humanity behind these avatars – people who, like us, navigate daily life with its myriad routines and challenges. Yet, despite these commonalities, we find ourselves deeply divided along lines of morality, sexual and gender identity, belief systems, and political affiliations. In this fragmented social landscape, expecting empathy to serve as a bridge seems futile.

But here's where logic steps in. As I discuss in "Logic in the Wild," logic, in its role as the guardian of coherence, offers a way to understand and appreciate the beliefs of others. It allows us to find coherence in their thoughts without needing to fully immerse ourselves in their experiences. Logic provides a framework to navigate the complexities of human thought and interactions, especially in a world where empathy often falls short.

Dialetheism Alongside Validity as a Social Construct and Logical Nihilism

This week I argued that validity is a social construct and I defended logical nihilism. While I’m at it, I might as well tell you why I’m a dialetheist. To be a dialetheist is to believe in the existence of true contradictions. This might sound perplexing at first. Take, for instance, statements like "I am human and I am not human" or "It’s 23 degrees in Auckland and it isn’t 23 degrees in Auckland." These are clear contradictions, and it would indeed seem absurd to claim they are true. In fact, they are false. This initial sense of absurdity is precisely the challenge that dialetheism addresses.

Historically, in the European tradition, Aristotle is often recognized for formulating the law against contradictions. Rather than definitively defending this law, Aristotle articulated it in various ways, some of which are blatantly false. Despite these inaccuracies, his authority has consistently been used to deny the possibility of contradictions. This complex narrative, including Aristotle's contributions and their implications, is more deeply explored Logic in the Wild.

As I’ve discussed this week, Twentieth-century logic has been obsessively seeking the foundations of mathematics, which are supposed to provide logical underpinnings for all reasoning considered 'valid' (a notion I argue is a social construct). Therefore, asserting the existence of true contradictions in the 21st century directly challenges this long-established tradition, particularly within mathematical logic. To claim that the quest for mathematical foundations was merely a dream, disrupted by the reality of true contradictions, is naturally (and here I empathize with the reaction) perceived as an offense.

However, recognizing true contradictions does not mean we forsake all rationality. Accepting every contradiction would lead to triviality, where everything is considered true - a situation no logician accepts. Even we dialetheists, who acknowledge certain contradictions, staunchly reject this notion of triviality. Our focus lies on what I describe in "Logic in the Wild" as 'insolubles,' statements that, based on first principles, imply each other’s opposites. The Liar paradox is a classic example, asserting “I am a false sentence.” This paradox demonstrates a true contradiction through its self-referential nature: if it’s true, then what it says is true, namely that it’s false, so it’s false. But if it’s false, it’s false that it is false, so it is true (double negation, first principle). So it’s a true contradiction. Weird? Sure, but not trivial.

In the chapter “Logic in the Weird” of Logic in the Wild, you’ll discover how logic guards coherence in the face of the weird, the absurd, the paradoxical, and the insoluble. Writing this book has altered my perspective, especially regarding how logic functions within a community. It has led me to a broader viewpoint that accommodates the practices of twentieth-century mathematical logicians, who sought coherence in mathematics, while also allowing logic to uphold coherence in more perplexing contexts. Recognizing that logic isn't governed by universal laws (logical nihilism) frees it within the community, offering an alternative to full-blown emotional empathy. This, I believe, marks the beginning of logic’s rehabilitation.

Logic at the Rescue of Empathy: Navigating Societal Divides

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!