I was reading the dialogues of Plato last night. I absolutely love the way he makes philosophical points through the use of argumentative conversation, in rhetorical question and answer format, nowadays known as Platonic dialogue. The idea of the form is for the person making a point in his argument to ask questions of his opponent, simple questions to which there are simple, obvious answers, which come together logically one upon the other to prove the questioner's point. This was used by another Greek, a playwright (Aristophanes, I believe, but I may be wrong) humorously to show how if you start with an incorrect premise, then you can "logically" prove just about anything. This is what he called "the bad logic" versus "the good logic."
This cracked me up when I remembered a passage from Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. In this scene Huck is trying to explain the idea of foreign languages to the slave, Jim, who thinks it to be ridiculous for two people to speak differently. Twain uses a very simple form of Platonic dialogue between the two quite hilariously:
Huck:
"That's a Frenchman's way of saying it."
"Well, it's a blame ridicklous way, en I doan' want to hear no mo' 'bout it. Dey ain' no sense in it."
"Looky here, Jim; does a cat talk like we do?"
"No, a cat don't."
"Well, does a cow?"
"No, a cow don't, nuther."
"Does a cat talk like a cow, or a cow talk like a cat?"
"No, dey don't."
"It's natural and right for 'em to talk different from each other, ain't it?"
" 'Course."
"And ain't it natural and right for a cat and a cow to talk different from us?"
"Why, mos' sholy it is."
"Well, then, why ain't it natural and right for a Frenchman to talk different from us? You answer me that."
"Is a cat a man, Huck?"
"No."
"Well, den, dey ain't no sense in a cat talkin' like a man. Is a cow a man?-er is a cow a cat?"
"No, she ain't either of them."
"Well, den, she ain't got no business to talk like either one er the yuther of 'em. Is a Frenchman a man?"
"Yes."
"Well, den! Dad blame it, why doan' he talk like a man?"
This is a perfect, if somewhat simple, example of a bad premise for the argument, and simple bad logic to prove that speaking another language is ridiculous. It is an argument based on ignorance of cultures and languages. With such ignorance, it is easy with seemingly logical steps to prove that the moon is made of cheese.
For example, take a person who has no knowledge whatsoever of astronomy, distance, or other types of cheese than a wheel of Swiss cheese that he is examining with another person:
"Is this cheese round?"
"Yes, it's round."
"And is the moon round?"
"Yes, it's round as well."
"And is the cheese full of pits and holes?"
"Why, yes, it is."
"And can't you see pits and holes on the moon?"
"Why, yes, they look very similar."
"Well, then, don't they look so similar as to be the same?"
And you see how it works. I would like, at this time, to posit that stupidity, in fact, is the root of all wrongdoing.
I'm trying really hard not to go into a crazy rant about the ignorance of our age... trying...trying... TOO LATE!!! Here I go...
THIS REMINDS ME of a speech I saw by President Obama at a college shortly after his election. Now, please believe me; I am NOT making this up. I am dead serious. This happened. Really.
He was talking to the students and grad students about his plans for the economic stimulus packages and creating job opportunities and the typical political rhetoric, and then took some questions from the audience. One student who was about to graduate told President Obama that for the last four years he had been working at a McDonald's to help pay his way through college. He then asked the president what his plans were for reimbursing those like himself who had worked at lower paying jobs before Obama's presidency. Basically, asking if the government was going to pay him the difference in wages between his job at McDonald's and an average hourly wage.
Yah. I'm serious. This question was really asked, in all seriousness, by an Obama-supporter.
Where to begin? where to begin?
First of all, this is what happens when you accept a bad premise. His logic (that he was owed money from the government due to having worked a lower paying job) was perfect when based on the following assumptions: 1)That he was entitled to help from the government, 2) that the government had limitless right to redistribute wealth, ie, take it from someone who had worked a higher paying job the last four years, combine it with his wages from the last four years, whack it down the middle and redistribute it between them, and 3) that it wasn't his fault that he worked at a McDonald's the last four years (ignoring that if he worked harder at his job, he could have been promoted, ignoring that if he had worked harder at jobs during high school, he might have, with the previous training, been able to get a better one in college, ignoring that nobody forced him to work at McDonald's, or forced him not to seek better employment elsewhere, ignoring that if he didn't get better employment elsewhere, having sought it, that it was probably because he wasn't good enough for the job, and somebody else was, and therefore had earned that job and the better pay).
Secondly, when you take these assumptions to be fact, then the logic follows. He has been told that he is entitled to help from the government. Therefore of course he turns to the government to fix everything, instead of trying to better his situation himself. He has been told that he deserves as much happiness as everyone else. Therefore if he is less fortunate than others, that is unfair and the government needs to do something about it. He doesn't ever need to worry about working towards a promotion. He needs no additional schooling or training to justify earning more, even retroactively. Therefore if someone else makes more than he does because they worked for it, no worries, the government will give him a share.
Thirdly, this sense of entitlement that has pervaded our society is the natural precursor to justifying the limitless redistribution of wealth by the government. Obviously, if you felt you are owed more than you have earned, than wealth itself is not personal at this stage. Thus, wealth can be seen as a communal pool. Who else to distribute this wealth? The government, naturally. Possession is nine-tenths of the law, as they say, and so it goes with the natural law as well, apparently. The government distributes the wealth. The government has the wealth. It is, in fact, the government's wealth that they then dole out to us, the citizens. And why should it be handed out any way but fairly, regardless of what a person has earned? Earning something doesn't matter, innately deserving it does, for no actual reason at all other than that it doesn't belong to anybody, only the government, and the government's place in this world is to hand it out.
Anybody who thinks for two seconds can see that this reeks of unparalleled insanity. Yet this student had apparently gone through 12 grades of government-provided education and almost four years at a government-run college without ever once thinking for two seconds.
Obama's reaction? Surprisingly, a shade of disbelief crossed his features. As an answer he just spouted out some of the usual empty blah blah about creating job opportunities and stimulating the economy and pretty much the same crap he was saying before. The fact that he was surprised by the question just shows that he hadn't realized what his political ideologies were leading to (which takes about 3 seconds thought) and that shows that Obama apparently went through 12 grades, 4 years college, however many years law school and experience practicing law, without having once sustained a thought for 3 seconds.
No comments:
Post a Comment