I am sure someone has thought this out before, but I just thought it out the other night. So, I am going to record my argument here.
There are a little more that 2 billion Christians in the world, but the current population of the earth is well over 7 billion. That means at least 5 billion reject Christianity and do not believe it is true.
There are around 1.9 billion Muslims. Thus, over 5 billion reject it and do not think it is true.
The rest of the world's religions are smaller than those two, so, do the math; it comes out the same every time.
In every case, the majority rejects any religion you choose.
My conclusion: the majority is right. Every time and in every case.
I entirely agree with the majority of mankind when I say that all religions are false.
We often insist nowadays on cultural
identity – for instance, national identity, linguistic identity, and so on.Sometimes the struggles under the banner of
identity, national identity, linguistic identity, are noble fights.But at the same time the people who fight for
their identity must pay attention to the fact that identity is not the
self-identity of a thing, this glass, for instance, this microphone, but implies
difference within identity.That is, the
identity of a culture is a way of being different from itself; a culture is different
from itself; language is different from itself; the person is different from
itself. Once you take into account this
inner and other difference, then you pay attention to the other and you understand
that fighting for your own identity is not exclusive of another identity, is
open to another identity.And this prevents
totalitarianism, nationalism, egocentrism, and so on.That is what I tried to demonstrate in the book
called The Other Heading: in the case of culture, person, nation, language,
identity is a self-differentiating identity, an identity different from itself,
having an opening or a gap within itself. That totality affects a structure, but it is a
duty, an ethical and political duty, to take into account this impossibility of
being one with oneself.It is because I am
not one with myself that I can speak with the other and address the other.That is not a way of avoiding responsibility.On the contrary, it is the only way for me to
take responsibility and to make decisions.(Caputo, 12f)
Having
just seen 258 words about the other from Derrida, consider 250 words on the other
from Nietzsche.
Too close. – If we live together with another person too closely,
what happens is similar to when we repeatedly handle a good engraving with our bare
hands: one day all we have left is a piece of dirty paper.The soul of a human being too can finally become
tattered by being handled continually; and that is how it finally appears
to us – we never see the beauty of its original design again. – One always
loses by too familiar association with friends and women; and sometimes what
one loses is the pearl of one’s life.(HH 428 complete)
In parting. – It is not in how one soul approaches another but
in how it distances itself from it that I recognize their affinity.(HH II 251 complete)
The first thought of the day. – The best way of
beginning each day well is to think on awakening whether one cannot this day give
pleasure to at any rate one person.If this could substitute for the religious practice of prayer, then this
substitution would be to the benefit of one’s fellows.(HH II 389 complete)
A testimony to love. – Someone said: “There are
two people upon whom I have never thoroughly reflected: it is a testimony of my
love for them.”(HH III 301 complete)
Rare abstemiousness. – It is often no small
sign of humanity not to wish to judge another and to refrain from thinking about
him.(D 528 complete)
To the solitary. – If we are not as considerate of the honour
of other people in our private soliloquies as we are in public, we are not
behaving decently. (D 569 complete)
From
which author would you like to read another 300 words about the other? Who is
clear? Who is obscure?
If I was on a debate stage against a republican running for congress, senate, governor, state house, sec of state, or any other office, I think I could win the debate. Hands down. Win. How? By working on the issues, driving the ball and having a few zingers at the ready.
There are a lot of angles from which to come up with a zinger. When you find one, record the zinger and add it to the list.
One of the most powerful angles that Dems have and that I have not seen exploited much turns on the fact that lots of Republican leaders, including Trump, are not reliable, and unfit for office. People who lie a lot are unfit for office, also those who repeat lies. People who are afraid are unfit, including those who are afraid of their party's leader. Political poltroons must be called out for the cowards they are, and doing so must be continually turned to the advantage of our party. Ask your opponent which of Trump's lies they have stood up to, and which they plan to stand up to. Have a list in mind, let them choose, "which of these 5 lies do you denounce?" If they do not answer, answer for them, they accept all 5 lies. "You accept lies, you stand for lies, you and your party stand for nothing but the lies of Donald Trump, unless it is covering up the crimes of Donald Trump" -- I dare a dem to say that kind of thing on a debate stage.
The GOP harbors a lot of arrogant, self-important ideas and people. But the left never calls them arrogant. They call us know-it-all, but we never call out their grotesque pretenses to knowledge. They call us gun-grabbers, we don't seem to be calling them rights-snatchers. They are religious extremists, but we never say so. They are church-going bigots, but we don't mention it. They insist that libs are moralistic but they are narrow mindedly moralistic and high handed about almost everything starting with abortion rights, and women's role in society. They are prudes too, but we never say so. They are nosy neighbors trying to run their neighbors' lives with the power of government. They want police in the bedroom. They want police in the bathroom. They want women's periods tracked. They want silencers for guns to be freely available, so the next mass shooter will have one. They want to arrest women who leave their home state seeking abortion services. They want rapists to have a say in raising any child their crimes generate. That is the brave new world these societal contrarians are pushing at us.
And they are not conservative, because they do not want to conserve the status quo. They want drastic and sudden change. That makes them sound like radicals, not conservatives. They are extremists who distrust moderation, that is, the status quo. Calling them conservative is a misnomer.
Of course all zingers are effective only if they are delivered in the right moment and with the right emphasis. When a KY candidate said of McConnell that if his doctor told him he had a kidney stone, he would refuse to pass it. she might have had the right timing, but a poor emphasis wrecked her delivery.
All of the zingers below require one to imagine a moment arising that could make it or something like it a valuable element of a debate performance.
ZINGERS
Whether I win or lose I will never stop fighting against the GOP. You and your party will not be hijacking my religion and using it to take my rights away, nor my daughter's rights, nor any one else's. We will never stop fighting you and we will win in the long run, and the party of using religion to reverse women's progress, the party of making women dependent on men again, will lose. You will lose big time and forever and ever.
We will not allow your party to hijack religion to take people's rights away.
I have known a lot of Christians in my day, and I strongly prefer the kind of Christian who does not lie all the time, sir.
I have known a lot of Christians in my day, and I strongly prefer the kind of Christian who does not repeat Trump's lies, ma'am.
There are all kinds of Christians, there are nice ones and mean ones. and you and Trump are mean ones. And your party is run by mean ones too. The Christians who attacked our capitol are mean ones too. And so are Nazis and KKK folks, those are mean Christians too. Your party attracts mean, repressive Christians, and shuns the nice ones.
Every lie Trump tells, you tell. And that makes you unfit for office.
Lying is disrespectful. You disrespect every voter in America when you lie like that.
People who will not or cannot distinguish a rumor from a fact are unfit for office.
A party that cannot or will not distinguish fact from rumor is unfit to lead.
A party whose platform consists of fealty to Donald is unfit to lead.
People who repeat lies and rumors are unfit for office, and all you do is repeat Trump's lies, and therefore you are unfit for office, sir.
Christians are not supposed to gossip and spread rumors, but that is all you and your party run on any more. You stand for a bunch of unfounded statements and mere rumors about elections, vaccines, history, climate, library books, gay people, evolution and just about everything else.
Conspiracy theories are rumors and passing along rumors is a sin. Check you bible, sir. It's called gossip.
My opponent is a nice guy, but I wouldn't follow him to a men's room. People who credit or spread rumors should not be listened to or trusted. We cannot let them lead.
Donald Trump is a pathological liar, and people who believe him are unfit to lead.
Your fealty to Trump has one of two causes. Either you actually believe Trump's lies, or you do not believe his lies and don't care about the fact that Trump lies. In either case, you are unfit for office, sir.
All of your conspiracy theories are rumors, and Christians are not supposed to spread rumors, so you should stop, if you care about your mortal soul, you should stop with the conspiracy theories and rumors about the 2020 election. I beg you, Jesus begs you, just stop!
Which lie will you tell next? The one about the 2020 election? The vaccines? Climate change? The border wall that was never built? Evolution? The emotional lives of children who read library books? The emotional reactions of whites who learn about the history of racism in America? The stories about litter boxes in high schools? Which path of lies and unfounded rumors will you run down next, you republican weasel?
FOX News relies on gossip and rumors, which are things Christians are supposed to avoid.
Your party keeps losing, is that because Jesus hates you for your lies? Or what? Why is Jesus letting your party lose like this?
All you do is lie. All your party does is lie. When will it stop?
Your party lies about other people in order to create fear and hatred.
You seem obsessed with other people's health care decisions.
Other people's abortions are none of your business, sir.
You nosy neighbor types are obsessed with what others do in their bedrooms.
The GOP is obsessed with what people are doing in their bedrooms.
The GOP is obsessed with what your kids think about sex.
Stop obsessing about gay kids.
Stop obsessing about other people's abortions.
Stop obsessing about what other people's kids are reading.
Stop obsessing about other people's bedrooms.
You and your version of religion are twins, you are both obsessive control freaks.
Your party lives in the past, you all are still afraid of gays.
I think you are afraid of gay kids and their parents.
You and your party constantly try to punish your enemies and keep voters from the polls.
Your party is trying to force a narrow version of religion on everyone. Voters who believe in real religious freedom must vote against all republicans.
You snatch people's rights away, you MAGA folks are freedom snatchers, not freedom makers.
Your party is afraid of science, sex and women -- the best things on earth, you cowards can't hate 'em enough.
Your party hates the US federal government, but all the constitution does is create that government. To hate the federal government is to hate the constitution.
You and your party misunderstand the Declaration of Independence. It is not a part of the laws of the land. It does not grant you the right to overthrow the government. That is a crime. A party that cannot or will not distinguish between a newspaper article and a body of law is unfit to lead.
Your version of Christianity is the ugliest thing on this earth. It's all about hating gays, women, foreigners and poor people. It justifies lying to gain power. It is authoritarian and contrary to the American spirit of freedom, equality and self-determination. No I do not like the version of religion that republicans want to force on us all.
I strongly prefer a version of Christianity that denounces Nazis and I strongly oppose the kind of Christian who panders to them. That is a major difference between me and you, sir, a major difference. You pander to them, I fight them.
I fear you worship the worst Jesus imaginable, a cowardly, mean bigot like yourself.
The GOP does not fight crime, it perpetuates crime. It does not fight gun violence, it perpetuates gun violence. The republican party is responsible for mass shootings because they let the assault weapons ban expire. They shield gun manufacturers from law suits. They oppose closing loopholes that allow felons to get guns. They are working feverishly to get silencers legalized so that future mass shooters will have silencers, and higher kill rates.
Mass shooters with silencers, that is the future the GOP wants to see.
The crime rate in red states is out of control. Oklahoma has a higher murder rate than NYC. You cannot trust the party of giving guns to crooks, you cannot trust the party of legalizing silencers, you cannot trust the party that stifles and kills all gun safety legislation. They are corrupt, they are paid for by the NRA. They will never do a thing to improve the situation, and they will do everything they can to make it worse.
Too many of your so-called conservative activists now are small minded people who hate everyone and laugh at mass shootings.
Your party attracts people who laugh at mass shootings.
There is something seriously wrong with the party you represent, and I do not think you have the spine to fix it, nor the spine to stand alone against it. In fact, if you do that, your party will destroy you, and you know it. Therefore, I believe that you stand here representing the worst of parties, with the worst of intentions, the intention to serve the party rather than the people.
You will help legalize silencers for mass shooters, you will not have the spine to vote no on that. You are the problem, not the solution.
You will cover up for Trump and his crimes.
You will deny climate change and do everything you can to increase rather than decrease emissions.
You are the problem, you are a republican, therefore, you are the problem.
Anti-LGBTQ marches, anti-LGBTQ? Imagine if you replace LGBTQ with black or Asian or Hispanic or Jewish. Imagine that. You and your party accept that. I can't.
You are too scared to say what you believe because you might lose a vote. People who are afraid to lose a vote are unfit to lead. You are no leader.
People who are afraid of Donald Trump are unfit to lead and unfit for office. You deserve no votes, sir.
My opponent does not know his position on that issue because Donald Trump has not told him what it is.
My opponent has no position on this issue on his website because Donald Trump has not told him what it is.
You and your party constantly denigrate the US government. All evaluations are comparative. What national government is better? Canada? England? France? Russia? Who? What national government do you admire more than the US government? Which one should ours be more like?
The greatest experiment in self-government ever instituted by men, and all you righties can do is hate it. Why? Why must you and your party denigrate science, sex, women, and the US Government? Because whatever is great you hate. Whatever is good you demean. Whatever the majority prefers you revile. Whatever has dignity you denigrate. Meanwhile, the worst institution in America, the GO stinky P, that you love. And the worst groups in America, insurrectionists, antisemites, racists, misogynists, gay bashers, online trolls, vaccine haters, those are the folks you court and protect.
Church going bigots are not better bigots, they are just bigots.
It's the preachers who are out of control, not the teachers.
Bad preachers are far more common than bad teachers.
Pedophiles are far more likely to work the churches than the night clubs. Everyone knows that except the people at church, which is exactly why the pedos are working the churches!
The government of Texas is corrupt. It has been in the hands of a single party for far too long, it is ingrown, inbred and insane now, and the voters need to change the situation.
I have already argued that inalienable rights do not come from gods. I am going to argue that gods cannot make inalienable rights, no god can, including the ultimate god believed in by western and middle eastern theologies.
An inalienable right is one that cannot be taken away. Theists like to say that rights granted by governments are not inalienable because they can be taken away by government. But the same can be said about rights created or granted by a god, or flowing from a god. Those rights can be uncreated, ungranted, or cease to flow. Those rights cannot be inalienable. And therefore inalienable rights cannot come from gods.
That is my earlier argument and it is quite strong. If the theist's point holds, mine does. But I have a further argument.
Consider what it would take for a god to make an inalienable right. It would require that he make something that he cannot unmake.
But asking a god to make something that he cannot unmake is like asking him to make a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it, or an ocean so deep that he cannot reach the bottom of it. One is asking god to exceed his powers, and that cannot be done. So, the problem of gods and inalienable rights touches on one of the most widely familiar paradoxes of omnipotence.
I can easily make a weight that I cannot lift. God cannot do that due to his omnipotence.
I can make a burrito so hot that I cannot eat it. Omnipotence cannot be exceeded, so it cannot do that.
I can give a gift that I cannot take back due to its being eaten or spent or perhaps it flies away as soon as the box is opened. Because he is omnipotent, God cannot do that. He can reconstitute what is eaten, un-spend what is spent or catch what has flown away.
He appears to lack some of the powers I possess. But this is an illusion. It is his omnipotence which makes it so that his powers cannot be exceeded.
My powers can be exceeded but his cannot. Therefore, God cannot make an inalienable right.
It would be the simplest religion ever, devoted to as few statements as possible, namely, just one.
It would be the only religion whose name and central tenet are the same.
It would be the only religion based on a statement that is useful.
It would be the only religion based on a true statement.*
*(Of course, that statement would not be true if applied to my religion, that is, to the religion known as Your Religion is False. To say that about the religion of Your Religion is False is to say something false because the denial of a true statement is always false. So, the statement on which our religion is based is true as long as it is applied to any religion except our own, Applied to our own religion it is false. Ours is the only true religion.)
Perhaps it should be renamed, If You Are Not of My Faith, then Your Religion is False, because that statement is not only true, it is universally true without being necessarily true. In addition, this longer formula mocks pretty much all religion, because religion is essentially the psychological capture of an audience by a priesthood, and the usual means of capture and retention of souls involves downgrading all sources of satisfaction outside the cult.
If I go around saying "if you are not of my faith, then your religion is false", I sound like a Christian, I mock the Christian, I humiliate the Christian. That sort of thing might motivate some to adopt the longer name. But I like the shorter name.
I'm not inclined to join or lead groups, but if there was a need, I would work as the pope of Your Religion is False.
I truly want to spout it in court (especially in Amarillo) and claim full protection for my religion under the constitution. I want to say it in Florida. I want to say it to every lying Christofascist in the country. I want to say it on Fox News. Your Religion is False.
I have been hearing for over a decade the phrase that our rights come from God. One also hears the phrase "God given rights" a lot. The more I think about this kind of remark the more I am convinced it is bravado and ritual -- everything has to come from God somehow, so this is just a ritual remark, like the remark that love comes from God, or babies, or the weather.
One often hears this kind of thing restricted so that it talks only about inalienable rights, not all rights. It is this narrower claim, the claim that inalienable rights come from God that I want to address.
Occasionally one hears an actual argument for this position which goes something like this:
1 Either Inalienable Rights (IR) come from God or from Government
2 IR cannot come from Government
3 Therefore, IR come from God
This is an admirable argument that takes the form of eliminative disjunction, which is a valid deductive form. If these premises are true, this conclusion follows necessarily from them.
An argument can go wrong in only two ways, either it has a false premise, or its premises fail to support its conclusion. Because this is a valid form, its premises fully support its conclusion. So, the only thing that could be wrong here is a false premise. If we are to defend ourselves against this argument, we will need to find a false premise.
The first premise is a disjunction, which is true as long as at least one of its disjuncts is true. The second premise is a straight forward declarative statement. One often hears an argument for this second premise. It goes something like this:
4 IR are rights that cannot be taken away
5 Rights granted by Governments are rights that can be taken away
6 Therefore, rights granted by Governments cannot be IR
Line 6 is the same as line 2. If we accept this argument, we are accepting line 2. I suggest that we accept it.
By accepting lines 6 and 2 we are left with line 1 as our only defense against the first argument. If there is a falsehood to point out, this is were we will have to find it.
Line 1 is a disjunction, it says that IR either come from God or Government. That is true as long as one of the alternatives is. If both alternatives are false, then line 1 is false. We have already accepted that one of the alternatives is false when we accepted the second argument and line 2 above.
The two alternatives are IR come from God, and IR come from Government. We have rejected the second of these as false. What about the other alternative, IR come from God. Is that true?
I would say no, because it if a God granted a right, he or she can take that right away. So, the reason Gods cannot be the source of IR is the same reason that Governments cannot be their source.
Theists might argue that God would not take them away, but that is no better than arguing that governments would not. The point is not about would, it is about can. If a God can create your rights, he or she can uncreate them. If rights flow to us from a God, they can cease to do so. If rights come from somewhere, they can always go back there.
So, the argument I insist on is this:
7 IR are rights that cannot be taken away
8 Rights given by a God can be taken away.
9 Therefore, rights given by a God cannot be IR.
If there are IR they do not come from anywhere, because they could go back there. They are not generated or started, because things that have to be generated or started typically have to come to an end. Discussing our rights in any causal context like that is dangerous because our rights are then an effect, and effects do not last. Nor do they remain constant.
And since line 9 and line 6 together disprove both disjuncts in line 1, the first premise is false. Inalienable rights come neither from God nor from Government.
Line 1 is false and the first argument above is defeated because it is based on a false premise.
Nonetheless, the concept of human rights makes sense. It's a concept that can be made clear via contrast. Humans have special rights that we do not accord to non-humans. By the same token, parakeet rights, in our eyes, are not the same as dog rights, or cat rights, or horse rights, or sheep rights, etc. Children understand that kind of talk. People of all ages can have long, insightful discussions of these differences in rights, which proves my point that the concept of human rights makes perfect sense.
If that is the case then what about this concept of human rights, what is its status and content? Are the rights involved inalienable?
As a matter of fact, they are inalienable, because they are rights that belong to things based on what they are, and they cannot cease to be those things. You cannot cease to be human, and so your human rights, which you have by virtue of being human, cannot be taken away (alienated) from you. Human rights are logically inalienable.
They are not inalienable because of how they were created or bestowed or given or thought up or invented. No. They are inalienable because all of us know that humans are human and that nothing else is.
I found a short piece for the blog. This is the introduction to my old Chapter 5, from a book on Nietzsche and Logic. This piece reviews some of the nonsense postmodernists say about logic.
Nietzsche on Logic
This chapter responds to a handful of postmodern tales
about Nietzsche’s alleged animosity toward logic.It compares those claims with the text,
demonstrates that they are mistaken, and argues for four theses.
The four theses are 1) that Nietzsche clearly values
and respects logic, but is suspicious about what he calls its presuppositions,
2) that he describes moral vices which he associates with logic, 3) that he
describes a fallacy which he associates with justifications for very general
propositions (possibly including propositions of logic), and 4) that many of
the critical remarks which readers might easily assume are aimed at logic are
in fact aimed at other things, usually one of two things: that faith he
describes as being presupposed by logic in 1) above, or else those vices he
associates with logic in 2) above.
I propose to counter postmodern mistakes by relying on
the power of careful reading.If we
separate Nietzsche’s remarks about logic from his remarks about other things –
such as metaphysics, biology, history, ethics – we can finally isolate his
respect for logic on one side of the table, and a small collection of likely
sources of the century old rumor that he devalues or disrespects it on the
other.
Postmodernists are not the first writers to claim that
Nietzsche held logic in low esteem, although theirs is surely the first school
to make that opinion orthodox.In sharp
contrast to their view, Nietzsche’s published works praise and urge us to study
logic.I am not the first to make this
point.Hales and Welshon noted
Nietzsche’s positive regard for logic while also arguing that his position
appears to be that logic, like language, can be misleading.‘The charge that logic or language is
misleading’, they add, ‘is ultimately a criticism of those who are thereby
misled and is not an objection that undermines logic as a science of thought or
as a formal representation of natural language’ (2000, 55).They are right, but Nietzsche never published
the statement that logic is misleading.In fact, as we shall see, he rarely talked about the science of
logic.He was much more likely to talk
about the use of logic than about the science.He was also more likely to talk about an organic capacity that he called
logic than about the science of logic.
Another thing he
never did is to devalue or disparage the elements of logic.As Robert Nola discovered,
Nietzsche does not
criticise any principles of logic.In
fact, he often employs them, for example when he says that, owing to Boscovich,
‘materialistic atomism is one of the best refuted theories there is’
([BGE 12] italics added).All refutation
involves at least the principle known as Modus Tollens.And a little further on he takes himself to
have advanced an argument which is, as he says, a ‘reductio ad absurdam’
[BGE 15]; and again he says that the concept of a causa sui is a ‘rape
and perversion of logic’ [BGE 21].If
the principles of logic are not abandoned and are used and even praised, then
what is Nietzsche’s criticism of logic?The attack is more upon what he takes to be the presuppositions, or
theory of the status, of logic, and not the principles themselves.(2003, 491)
Nola writes that Nietzsche’s ‘attack is more upon’
presuppositions than principles, but it is not really a matter of more or
less.Nietzsche never attacks principles
of logic.His works, like most works in
philosophy, never bring even oneof the parts of logic into
focus.Like nearly all philosophers, he
was interested in other matters.In
particular, he was interested in what he called ‘historical philosophy’.It is this historical mode of philosophizing
which prompts the question, in his first published aphorism, as to how logic
arises from unlogic (HH 1).As a
philosopher, Nietzsche wants to account for logic within a larger account of
human development, including human cognitive development (HH 2).As a writer and thinker, he wants to use
it.Like most philosophers, he has
little or no reason to focus on or theorize it.
In order to introduce to our discussion a first example
of a logic-disrespecting Nietzsche of the postmodern variety, let us turn to
page 3 of Nietzsche and Metaphysics, where Michael Haar claims that ‘the
specific nature of Nietzsche’s discourse might well be defined in the first
instance as an attempt to encourage disbelief in the laws of logic and the
rules of grammar’ (1996, 3).As a
companion to Haar’s Nietzsche, consider these words from David Allison:
The vibrant
expressiveness of Nietzsche’s prose, the fertility and suggestiveness of its
content, refuse to be systematized; it resists the imposition of static
categories, of rule governance – whether logical or linguistic.The dynamic flow of the experienced events he
evokes cannot be easily overlooked: it bears no simple definition, it claims no
essence or distinctive form.In this
respect, Nietzsche’s discourse declines reliance upon strict definition, upon
the single, unchanging, univocal meaning of a term, upon the rigorous logical
argument, and most forcefully, upon the principle of identity, which certifies
that one thing is only one thing – and nothing else.Nietzsche turns away from all of this on the
level of style, toward the more poetic, figurative use of
language: the aphorism, the apothegm, the image, the simile, the metaphor, all
of which are essentially unstable, imbalanced means of expression.(2001, 75f)
Allison’s Nietzsche rebels against ‘rule governance,’
‘rigorous logical argument’, ‘univocal meaning’, ‘static categories’ and ‘the
principle of identity’.
Haar’s Nietzsche, who is seditious against ‘grammar’
and the ‘laws of logic’ in general, also goes on to punch at ‘the principle of
identity’ in particular.Nietzsche’s
‘key words … elude conceptual logic’ and ‘are meant to subvert, fracture and dismiss
concepts’, Haar claims. ‘Whereas a concept, in the classical sense, comprises
and contains, in an identical and total manner, the content that it assumes,
most of Nietzsche’s key words bring forth, as we shall see, a plurality of
meanings undermining any logic based on the principle of identity’ (1996,
3).So, both Haar and Allison describe a
Nietzsche who has a negative relationship with ‘the principle of
identity’.
Haar’s
belief about the potential of words used with ‘a plurality of meanings’ to
undermine something in logic deserves special attention.A similar claim is made by Louise Mabille in Nietzsche
and the Anglo-Saxon Tradition.
In Nietzsche’s work,
abundant imagery is a deliberate deconstructive strategy.The richness of his imagery and the many
contradictions engendered thereby, prevents him from being included in a
system, and subverts logic as the foundation for philosophy itself.For Nietzsche, logic is just another
structure that developed in intellectual history, whose genealogy can be
given.This genealogy makes it clear
that logic itself arose from a rhetorical peremptory sentence, and is
ultimately aimed at establishing and maintaining relations of power.(2009, 141)
Mabille believes that using imagery subverts logic, and
perhaps that contradictions subvert logic, and perhaps that not being in a
system subverts logic.By ‘imagery’ she
means a kind of word or words.Meanwhile, Haar talks about terms with ‘a plurality of meanings’, by
which he means a kind of word or words. Thus, both Haar and Mabile appear to believe
that using a particular kind of phrasing could subvert logic, which is false,
because whatever phrasing one uses, logic just assigns a variable, either to
that phrasing or to the proposition in which it appears, as it does with all
other terms and phrases.Words conveying
imagery pose no special challenge.Nor
do words with ‘a plurality of meanings.’
Meanwhile, a contradiction is something described by
logic.It is also something that
violates a rule of logic.But the mere
fact that something violates a rule of logic cannot subvert logic.If violating a rule subverted the body of
which that rule is a member, then 3+5=9, which violates at least one rule of
arithmetic, would subvert arithmetic.Violating a rule of math or logic does not affect the individual rule
violated, nor does it affect the body of elements of which that rule is a
part.If anything, an instance of 3+5=9
in the world validates and strengthens the rules of arithmetic when the rules
are used to call it out as and prove it to be an error, and thus demonstrate
their usefulness.The same goes for
contradictions; detecting them depends upon and demonstrates the usefulness of
logic.If Mabille, or any of us, can
recognize a contradiction, then logic is to thank, not to mourn.And if it is true that imagery often
engenders contradictions, logic would be crucial to our knowing it.Meanwhile, explaining what it means to be
prevented from ‘being included in a system’ will require some use of logic.Lastly, a text that is unsystematizable has
at least one thing in common with a text that is rife with contradictions,
imagery, and uses invoking a plurality of meanings, in that all such texts can
subvert or undermine logic about as much as they can subvert or undermine the
moon.
A fourth and final sample of this genre comes from Nietzsche’s
Philosophy of Science by Babette E. Babich.
The goal and rule of
valid logical argument is its conservative assurance of truth (justification),
if truth is to be had.Only where the
premises are given as true to begin with may one validly proceed to (similarly
true) conclusions.The logical effort is
necessarily tautological: it assumes truth to preserve it.
But
if there is no truth, only interpretation, then anything can be concluded from
whatever is ordinarily taken to be true.Hence Nietzsche’s fascination with the Assassin’s motto, “Nothing is
true: everything is allowed,” does not blindly presume the principles of
ordinary logic but is rather concinnously employed.For the benefit of believers in ordinary
logic, A and –A can be posited as equivalent.If it is false that nothing is true or false, anything follows.The value of truth is elided in the
ambivalence of insistent contradiction.This notional dissonance is characterized by the fluid terms,
contradictions, aphorisms, metaphors, hyperbole, and the tropings and the
concinnous invocations and so on making up the conceptual challenge of
Nietzsche’s style.(1994, 112)
This passage is deeply confused.[i]When Babich speaks ‘for the benefit of
believers in ordinary logic’, is she talking down to someone?Does she think there is a logic other than
ordinary logic?Is there a vein of
discourse that urges disbelief in ‘ordinary logic’ in favor of that other
logic?The answers to all three
questions are affirmative.I discuss
postmodern myths about the existence of a counter-logic, and attempts to
associate Nietzsche with it, in Chapter 7 below.
Meanwhile,
‘A and –A can be posited as equivalent,’ claims Babich.What does that mean?As long as ‘equivalent’ allows for ‘having
the same truth value’, and the symbols she employs are given standard
interpretations in propositional logic, she would be saying that a proposition
and its denial can both be true, which violates the law of non-contradiction;
and that they can both be false, which also violates it.
Babich
describes a Nietzsche who denies the law of non-contradiction, while Allison
and Haar think that he rejected the law of identity.There are three laws, or law-like statements,
traditionally discussed in this area.They are the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the law
of excluded middle.In Nietzsche’s
Perspectivism, Hales and Welshon discuss several postmodern theorists who
argue that Nietzsche rejected the law of excluded middle, including Derrida
(2000, 51f).So, for each of the three
traditional laws, there is at least one postmodernist who has associated
Nietzsche with its denial.
In addition, all of the postmodernists cited above hold
that Nietzsche’s written style somehow reflects or embodies his attitude toward
logic.
Are these authors right?Does Nietzsche urge us to resist the rules of
logic?Does he decline to rely on
rigorous arguments?Does he resist ‘rule
governance’?Does he deny the law of
identity?Does he deny the law of
excluded middle?Does he deny the law of
non-contradiction?If he does not deny
these law-like statements, does he downgrade their scope or status?Finally, is Nietzsche’s style a turning away
from, or even a rebuke to logic?
To each of these questions my answer is no.I will defend each answer separately. ...
The
differences between Haar, Allison, Mabille and Babich, along with the theorists
described by Hales and Welshon, exemplify the variety to be found among
postmodernists who hold the view that Nietzsche rebels against logic.What each theorist describes, however, is a
type of rebellion characteristic of postmodern philosophy.None of it can be found in Nietzsche.
[i] Babich’s second sentence above is false because we
can hypothesize or assume or imagine a proposition’s truth, and thus we need
not start from ‘given’ truths in order
to use logic.The third sentence speaks
of ‘the logical effort’ without defining it.Logicians will agree, however, that efforts are not propositional, and
thus cannot be tautological.Against the
fourth sentence: ‘interpretation’ saves enough of ‘truth’ to prevent the
consequence Babich sees.Against the
seventh sentence, ‘If it is false that nothing is true or false’, then it is
true that something is, and it is not the case that just anything follows from
that.What Babich meant to say was that
if it is true that nothing is true or false, anything follows.But of course, that premise is more
obviously contradictory than hers.
