Logical Thinking
What is logical thinking? Or rather, what types of thinking can be constituted as “logical?” There are multiple approaches to this problem. Some consider a direct and strong correlation between cause and effect the basis of logical thinking. The system built upon these intricate webs of cause and effect are the basis for logical thinking. For others, it could mean the appropriate usage of historical or personal precedent in solving a problem in front of them. Regardless of the validity of these arguments, the very existence of these arguments demonstrate a clear interest in grasping logical thinking. This essay will present an argument for a form of logical thinking that withstood time, one that’s neither easy nor hard.
How do people usually think? They see a problem, then they manifest an idea from seemingly nothing. They would then hold this idea as the truth. For some, that is truth until somebody can dethrone it from their mind. For others, it is the absolute truth beyond any challenges. A stubborn individual is one that holds truth hard to be overthrown, but one that holds an absolute truth is crazy. Not only does their thinking not equipped to seek truth in the philosophical sense, it’s not prepared to adapt to complex problems in real life.
It’s unavoidable that one will come up with an idea when encountering a problem. It’s but a reflex programmed into one’s head. However, the logical thing to do afterwards is to challenge it with everything you can. As aforementioned, insanity is but hold the first thought as absolute truth; conversely, a rational mind would attempt to challenge that first thought.Any thought that could survive the onslaught would, therefore, be worthwhile to keep around.
Keen eyes might’ve spotted the similarities between this method and intellectual discourse, where an idea is debated repeatedly so that anything weak would be filtered out. Indeed, this methodology took shape first with Socrates, who challenged social norms with the socratic dialogue. By endlessly questioning his students about social norms, he sought to weed out any thought not worthwhile, keeping only the strongest arguments standing. Sometimes, he would play as the advocate, and invite his students or bystanders to challenge his own beliefs. The process of challenging and being challenged is the foundation of Greek Philosophy, and it has survived long after the destruction of Athens. As Socrates’ most famous student, Plato later adopted this method into his work. Unlike Socrates, however, Plato preferred to keep those thoughts in his own head, challenging his beliefs on his own. He would record his internal discourse before organizing them into books for others to read. Plato would often address a potential argument against his belief in his book, a rhetorical method known today as “counterargument.” Long story short, the methodology introduced in this essay came from the Greeks. More specifically, we adopt Plato’s version of the Socratic method.
After establishing this methodology, it would be ironic if some potential concerns are not addressed. Some may be concerned of a good idea not surviving the bombardment of challenges. There is some fundamental problem with this reasoning. A strong argument should survive the bombardment. If one doesn’t survive that, that argument doesn’t hold water in the first place. The product this trial cannot appear before the trial; as such, it would be foolish to think a favorable product exists before these tests.
Some may argue that the Socratic method isn’t the only way for logical thinking. That would be true. The Plautus series will discuss multiple methodologies in the future. From Yudkowsky’s algorithm to Hegel’s reasoning, we seek to target those that would prove practic. It would be ironic if we don’t invite some socratic challenge: feel free to give us feedback.
Written by: Plautus
