Articles From The Classical Teacher
Logic
is Not Math
by
Martin Cothran (about
him)
If I see my logic program listed in the math section of catalogs
one more time, Im going to pull out my hair!
Not that theyre trying
to make me mad or anything. In fact, theyre just trying
to sell my book, and they probably think that ought to make
me happy, and theyre right. It should.
So whats my problem?
Why would it bother me that people think logic is math?
Well, first of all, logic isnt
math. And, second, the fact that many people think so is an
indication of how much we are influenced by modern philosophyand
how far we have come from a classical Christian view of reality.
What catalogs are doing, of
course, is putting logic books where most people would expect
to find them, and most people expect to find them in the math
section. This is partly because the only exposure most people
have to logic is a smattering of modern symbolic logic in
a high school math class.
Indeed, when most people think
of logic, they think almost exclusively of the modern system,
because that is what most logic programs teach. If you pick
up any popular college text, you will find that, although
it includes a small section on traditional logic, most of the
book is focused on the modern symbolic logic.
The difference between the
two systems of logic is quite dramatic, but most people can
recognize the modern system because of its prolific use of
symbols, in addition to common modern fixtures, such as truth
tables and Venn diagrams.
These things are almost entirely
absent from the traditional system. There isnt enough
room here to explain why that is, but there are very good
reasons for it. The question I want to ask and answer here
is this: If logic is not math, then what is it? The answer,
of course, is that logic is about finding truth with words,
not symbols and with language, not math. I cannot stress this
point strongly enough. For classical educators, this point
is absolutely crucial because it will determine the very makeup
of their curriculum.
Classical educators have always
known that the Trivium is about language. Grammar teaches
the structure of language; logic teaches right reasoning with
language; and rhetoric teaches the adornment of language with
power and beauty for persuasion.
A cursory look at how the Trivium
was actually used will suffice to establish my point. What
kind of logic was used in the Middle Ages, when classical
education was at its zenith? The answer, of course, is traditional
logic. In fact, modern symbolic logic is the creation of modern
philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell, and didnt even
exist until the turn of the 20th century.
Can we simply take the modern
system of logic and place it in the Trivium? The first answer
is, simply, nonot if we believe the Trivium is about
language, which it most certainly is. But we could also answer
the questionwhether we should replace the traditional
with the modern system of logicwith a question: Why
would we want to? Is there something wrong with the traditional
system that would require us to do this?
Modern secular thinkers, such as Frege and Russell, might
say that there is (in fact, Russell said exactly that in no
uncertain terms). Are we then justified in replacing the traditional
system with the modern? Only, of course, if we accept their
assumptions.
As Peter Kreeft and Ronald
Tacelli point out in their book, Many modern philosophers
are suspicious and skeptical of the venerable and common sense
notion of things having real essences or natures and of our
ability to know them. Aristotelian logic (traditional logic)
assumes the existence of essences and our ability to know
them.
We are not obligated to cast
our reasoning into wholly mathematical terms in order to escape
the common sense implications of language. In fact, the idea
would have been fundamentally alien to the classical educators
of the past. Traditional logic preserves the ancient common
sense view of the world, which is why it stays with language.
Martin Cothran is the author of Traditional Logic I and Traditional Logic II, as well as Material Logic and Classical Rhetoric with Aristotle.
|