The Philosophical Optimist

              Rational thought, it has been said, is an acquired taste.   And where, one might ask, is one to go to acquire such a taste?   Well, the logical answer to that question is: one goes to the logical to acquire logic—and who is more logical than Mr. Spock himself?   But how does one learn from a fictional character?   Again, the answer is simple: listen to what he says.             But before we go to our teacher to learn how to be logical, we should ask, what is logic?   Well, logical or rational thinking is simply thinking clearly.   Speaking the truth, said Aristotle, means saying of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not [1] —matching our words to reality.   Logical thought—which also benefitted a great deal from Aristotle—is simply thought which seeks to find “what is” and match our thoughts and our words ...

             A grammarian’s work is never done—nor a logician’s; and when one is a writing teacher, one of necessity plays both roles.   Sloppy writing is often but the outward sign of an inward illogic, and as all fans of the planet Vulcan know, a common foe of logic is strong emotion.   Hence it logically follows that it is precisely when people write about the things that matter the most to them that they are most likely to fall into the various logical traps we term fallacies.   When this happens it is the task of calmer, more logical minds to step in and restore order where passion—quite understandable passion, perhaps—has disordered things.             What topic could stir passions more thoroughly than the old contrast, so often flaring up into conflict, between the men who are, in a sense, the first two superheroes: Superman (1938) and Batman (1939)...

            Why waste time analyzing a book by Sam Harris?   Because I can.   Also because when someone writes a book called Letter to a Christian Nation , posturing as an intellectually superior rationalist explaining the truth to a bunch of gullible rustics, someone else should call fraud by pointing out the numerous ways he reasons fallaciously and substitutes for actual logic mere showy rhetoric.             First, let me say that in writing this book, Sam Harris speaks in two voices.   Speaking as an ethicist, Harris makes some good points, especially when criticizing those evangelicals who cannot distinguish following Christ from following the Leader of the Republican Party.   However, when dealing with more general matters philosophical—not to mention theological—Harris shows himself to be theologically ill-informed and logically untrained (or at t...

            It is a great pity when the editor of a great writer fails to understand that writer, and thus ends up committing the very error the writer is attacking; but, as Shakespeare said, "That 'tis true 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true."             Recently, I was reading the collection, G.K. Chesterton: Essential Writings , edited and introduced by one Mr. William Griffin.   Mr. Griffin, in this fine volume ("fine" in the double sense of being both excellent and small), has gathered selections from Mr. Chesterton's various writings, both short and long, which contain elements of the author's spiritual wisdom (the book being part of the Modern Spiritual Masters Series).   In addition to headnotes and endnotes to each selection, Mr. Griffin also composed an introduction for the volume, dealing with various aspects of Chesterton, the man and the writer. ...