Logics is not mathematics; it is a form of art. The validity of Mathematical equations is derived from mathematical axiom to induce the unified valid legitimate answer. By contrast, pure logics lacks this kind of criterion like mathematical axiom verifying the validity of the logical inference. Therefore, many logical subjects are unable to derive a solid unified answer so that they often provoke the conflict among different perspectives.
Logics is a form of expression to display the outcome which an individual wishes to achieve. For instance, the abduction shows A will induce C if A is/implies B as well as B is/implies C. At the same time, this answer can be modified by taking account of some external compound effect inside this algorism. There is no criterion enabling this algorism to self-evaluate to judge whether it is valid or invalid according to something like mathematical axiom.
Plato seems to be introduced as a figure head of the idealist philosopher in the history. However, his idealism hardly goes beyond the daily-life custom and experience. His logical inference is purely based on A and not A. Plato actually ended up with being an ultra-realist insisting on the importance of the power structure stabilising the human society instead of inventing some abstract concept beyond the human nature. But yet, Plato as well as his predecessor Socrates opened the gate of pursuing a universal objective to achieve the ideal state which a human individual may want to aspire.
By contrast, both Bentham and Kant invented their own theory of self-evaluating the validity of their logical inference with reference to the fundamental axiom of philosophical logics. This invention has enabled thinkers to imagine their ideal state beyond their real-life experiences. There shall be something verifying the validity of both A and not-A as well as inferring the unseen valid alternative of neither A nor not-A.
The crucial difference between Benthamite and Kantian logics is either human nature is changeable or not. Bentham affirmed the criterion is to admit and follow the quasi-instinct of humans as natural whereas Kant insisted on something transcending the human nature forming human custom, desire, habit, superstition, tradition, etc. Even though philosophers keep disputing over which criterion is more convincing than the other, these modern idealists provided individuals with the imagination ability of thinking outside the box to think bigger.
Those who are called Pragmatists have adopted the combined perspectives of Benthamite and Kantian perspectives. They accept various unique criteria existing for each distinct verification process for each unique subject. They have distinguished criteria and objectives which individual refer to and pursue between the metaphysical subjects such as philosophy and religion and the physical scientific subjects such as natural science and daily-life matters such as household economy and business activities.
The metaphysical subject depends on norms and values of each unique world view whilst each physical science is ought to focus on their own short-term goal as their pursuing criterion detached from a metaphysical/philosophical (the big picture model). Natural science pursuing to discover the concepts explaining the nature of the substantial world mechanism by means of their experiment in nature. The real business management, distinguished from the academic subject called business management, verifies its legitimacy of existence by means of their business performance, portfolio, and profitability.
Ayn Rand ardently disagreed with these modern idealists cohesively imposing a solid answer for defining the legitimacy of human actions and thoughts because imposing a universal principle defined by a certain privileged individual group to the other majority individuals is hypocritical. She admitted that philosophy does not need to be something axiomatic like mathematics to forcibly deriving an absolute answer. She described human’s life is an everlasting pursuit of finding their own way of spending life as well as feeling and thinking their own imagination while being adjusted to each unique life environment varying across different times, places, and occasions.
Ayn Rand praised both art and pure logics which all the human individuals should be devoted in. She explained art is the outcome of each unique logical construction by each individual expressing their own beauty, functionality, intelligence, and value. There should be no unified verification criterion/principle for approving their legitimacy. Instead, “try and error” guides individuals to their own ideal goal with the minimum required contracts and restrictions promoting and protecting the freedom of each individual to prevent unnecessary conflict, violation of freedom.
———
Nowadays, many academics as well as business and financial reporters often fail to address this aforementioned issue. There is no discussion over where the principle which their logical inference is based on. These authoritarians tend to hypocritically behave as though they were the transcendental guardians of all the humans whereas their logical inference is never universally valid in the real life of all the individuals. Their logical inference is simply the mere interpretation of their subjective desires and wishes.
In conclusion, it is important to question how logics is structured and the ulterior motive of the presenter using logics. For example, when a presenter uses her/his logics to forecast some outlook, her/his ulterior motive can be simply a subjective desire rather than an objective rationality. Instead of ranting on wishy-washy outcomes, it is rather productive to do some activities fulfilling the ethically worth something regardless of the future anticipation. If someone is excessively logical to explain or excuse something, there is a risk of this person intentionally intriguing to take an advantage of manipulating the others only for this person’s interest.
