A master of tautologies
This morning I am reminded of some of my logic classes when I was getting a degree in philosophy. There is doom and gloom or elation and bully threats regarding Mr. Trumps continued popularity with a certain, large segment of the U. S. Population. Mr. Trump is alleged to have said if the party tries to block him, “You’d have riots.” (Associated Press article by Julie Pace and Steve Peoples entitled “Trump’s warning to “GOP: Rally around me or expect riots.” In Tampa Tribune, March 17, 2016 p 8). Opposition to Trump and his supporters is being labeled as opposition to free speech. If I understand the crux of their argument, free speech is the right to call anyone who is non-white, non-Christian, non-male, non-heterosexual derogatory names and to suggest that they should not object to being bullied. Free speech is also the right to make such statements which directly or indirectly advocate a violent response to anyone who objects to bullying behavior.
It seems as the supporters of Mr. Trump have a different understanding of free speech than I do. Apparently free speech would entitle any school kid to tell their teacher and classmate to get out my f…king face.
It is also interesting that so many evangelical Christians are such avid supporters of Mr. Trump. I do understand that there are many who label themselves as Christians who sincerely believe that God is an angry, Old Testament vengeful God, that feminist views are an anathema to the God of their understanding, that homosexuality would offend the God of their understanding, and that the God of their understanding cannot accept a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or other framework for spirituality. I have no idea what they do with such new Testament passages as I Corinthians. Actually that is not true. I do understand that many are able to take such passages which advocate unconditional love and restrict it to that relatively small group of people who fit into the framework outlined above. My understanding of the teachings of Jesus is much different. My understanding is that Jesus, just like Allah, and the Buddha was very inclusive.
Marks and Engels who, when writing the Communist Manifesto, redefined when someone became humans and thus, limited who was deserving of respect and equal access to the benefits of a society. Hitler limited his understanding of the Chosen ones. I also understand that different groups within the Jewish religious umbrella understand the concept of the Chosen people differently than I do. Individuals such as the Nazi doctors who are chronicled by the author Jay Lipton understand getting rid of all the groups of people in the death camps the same as amputating limbs so a body can live. In short, I am well aware that we humans have gone to great lengths to assuage our basic fear that we have to somehow make ourselves special in order to be worthwhile. For many religious individuals it is not conceivable that the God of one’s understanding can love and value all of life, including all humans, equally and completely.
On the one hand it takes a very skilled person to make this an argument about free speech. To many it will feel, as it does for my friend Cheryl, reminiscent of being with a dysfunctional, often alcoholic family or group of dysfunctional people. In such a family one says that “The furnace is off” and someone says, “You have on the wrong shoes” as if the shoes one is wearing has something to do with the furnace. One is not related to the other. Philosophers and others who studied logic often talk the fallacy of tautologies . An example of a tautology is, “The red wagon is red.” The statement is obviously a true statement. Of course, all red wagons are red. What other color would red wagons be. In other words a tautology is making a true statement which does not add to one’s knowledge, but if one states it in a very assertive, important way it will sound as if it has meaning. If one says that FREE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH then one has not said anything. If one says that the constitution and laws of the United States restrict the use of free speech, it is accurate. The example which is commonly used is that one does not have the legal right to go into a crowded theater and scream fire when there is no fire. There would be panic and many people might die as a result. If there is a fire the theater managers might announce very calmly that they need to check something and that they are going to help the audience make an orderly exit, row by row, from the theater. That would be responsible behavior unrelated to the issue of free speech.
If someone says that “Most terrorists have been Muslim; we must keep out all Muslims” it might seem at first to some people that this is a logical statement. What is wrong with it logically? While it is true that some Muslims are terrorists it is not true that all Muslims are terrorists. It is also not true that all terrorists are coming into the country illegally. Some are United States citizens who live within the borders of the United States. It is true that some Christians are members of the Ku Klux Klan. It does not follow that all Christians are members of the Ku Klux Klan
Mr. Trump and many of his supporters are very talented in appearing to say something without saying anything. If his statements are called into question he turns it around in a way which makes it difficult to debate or argue. He does this with the violence. He makes statements about wanting to be violent and then he says that the other side is responsible for the violence. It is very accurate that no one can make me a commit a violent act. The protesters who are violent are responsible for their violence. That is a true statement. It is also true that leaders have the responsibility to lead by examples. Mr. Trump never or seldom addresses the fact that he advocates violence. He instead responds with a true statement that has nothing to do with the question. He gets an A grade in “crazy making” and the use of tautologies. Thus he can say that, “THE RED WAGON IS RED” with the voice of a rabbi, priest, or prophet coming down off the mountain from a face-to-face meeting with the God of his understanding. It is as if, “I have just come from God and he/she/it says, The Red wagon is red.” Sensible people do not argue with God or try question the logic of God.
Newsflash. I am not convinced that Mr. Trump is the new prophet. I am not convinced that being a master of tautologies should be the primary qualification for the leader of a country. I am not convinced that “crazy making” will make the most effective tool of diplomacy. On the other hand, perhaps I am wrong and all we need to do is to build a larger version of Guantanamo Bay staffed by psychiatrists who are willing to just keep all the world leaders, except Mr. Trump, effectively drugged so that they do not experience such confusion and emotional discomfort from the experience of dealing with Mr. Trump. Perhaps we could label the new illness as Trumpism or Tautological Syndrome.
Since I am writing on St. Patrick’s Day I must acknowledge the assistance of the leprechauns since the muse seemed to be on break this morning.
Written March 17, 2016
This morning I am reminded of some of my logic classes when I was getting a degree in philosophy. There is doom and gloom or elation and bully threats regarding Mr. Trumps continued popularity with a certain, large segment of the U. S. Population. Mr. Trump is alleged to have said if the party tries to block him, “You’d have riots.” (Associated Press article by Julie Pace and Steve Peoples entitled “Trump’s warning to “GOP: Rally around me or expect riots.” In Tampa Tribune, March 17, 2016 p 8). Opposition to Trump and his supporters is being labeled as opposition to free speech. If I understand the crux of their argument, free speech is the right to call anyone who is non-white, non-Christian, non-male, non-heterosexual derogatory names and to suggest that they should not object to being bullied. Free speech is also the right to make such statements which directly or indirectly advocate a violent response to anyone who objects to bullying behavior.
It seems as the supporters of Mr. Trump have a different understanding of free speech than I do. Apparently free speech would entitle any school kid to tell their teacher and classmate to get out my f…king face.
It is also interesting that so many evangelical Christians are such avid supporters of Mr. Trump. I do understand that there are many who label themselves as Christians who sincerely believe that God is an angry, Old Testament vengeful God, that feminist views are an anathema to the God of their understanding, that homosexuality would offend the God of their understanding, and that the God of their understanding cannot accept a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or other framework for spirituality. I have no idea what they do with such new Testament passages as I Corinthians. Actually that is not true. I do understand that many are able to take such passages which advocate unconditional love and restrict it to that relatively small group of people who fit into the framework outlined above. My understanding of the teachings of Jesus is much different. My understanding is that Jesus, just like Allah, and the Buddha was very inclusive.
Marks and Engels who, when writing the Communist Manifesto, redefined when someone became humans and thus, limited who was deserving of respect and equal access to the benefits of a society. Hitler limited his understanding of the Chosen ones. I also understand that different groups within the Jewish religious umbrella understand the concept of the Chosen people differently than I do. Individuals such as the Nazi doctors who are chronicled by the author Jay Lipton understand getting rid of all the groups of people in the death camps the same as amputating limbs so a body can live. In short, I am well aware that we humans have gone to great lengths to assuage our basic fear that we have to somehow make ourselves special in order to be worthwhile. For many religious individuals it is not conceivable that the God of one’s understanding can love and value all of life, including all humans, equally and completely.
On the one hand it takes a very skilled person to make this an argument about free speech. To many it will feel, as it does for my friend Cheryl, reminiscent of being with a dysfunctional, often alcoholic family or group of dysfunctional people. In such a family one says that “The furnace is off” and someone says, “You have on the wrong shoes” as if the shoes one is wearing has something to do with the furnace. One is not related to the other. Philosophers and others who studied logic often talk the fallacy of tautologies . An example of a tautology is, “The red wagon is red.” The statement is obviously a true statement. Of course, all red wagons are red. What other color would red wagons be. In other words a tautology is making a true statement which does not add to one’s knowledge, but if one states it in a very assertive, important way it will sound as if it has meaning. If one says that FREE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH then one has not said anything. If one says that the constitution and laws of the United States restrict the use of free speech, it is accurate. The example which is commonly used is that one does not have the legal right to go into a crowded theater and scream fire when there is no fire. There would be panic and many people might die as a result. If there is a fire the theater managers might announce very calmly that they need to check something and that they are going to help the audience make an orderly exit, row by row, from the theater. That would be responsible behavior unrelated to the issue of free speech.
If someone says that “Most terrorists have been Muslim; we must keep out all Muslims” it might seem at first to some people that this is a logical statement. What is wrong with it logically? While it is true that some Muslims are terrorists it is not true that all Muslims are terrorists. It is also not true that all terrorists are coming into the country illegally. Some are United States citizens who live within the borders of the United States. It is true that some Christians are members of the Ku Klux Klan. It does not follow that all Christians are members of the Ku Klux Klan
Mr. Trump and many of his supporters are very talented in appearing to say something without saying anything. If his statements are called into question he turns it around in a way which makes it difficult to debate or argue. He does this with the violence. He makes statements about wanting to be violent and then he says that the other side is responsible for the violence. It is very accurate that no one can make me a commit a violent act. The protesters who are violent are responsible for their violence. That is a true statement. It is also true that leaders have the responsibility to lead by examples. Mr. Trump never or seldom addresses the fact that he advocates violence. He instead responds with a true statement that has nothing to do with the question. He gets an A grade in “crazy making” and the use of tautologies. Thus he can say that, “THE RED WAGON IS RED” with the voice of a rabbi, priest, or prophet coming down off the mountain from a face-to-face meeting with the God of his understanding. It is as if, “I have just come from God and he/she/it says, The Red wagon is red.” Sensible people do not argue with God or try question the logic of God.
Newsflash. I am not convinced that Mr. Trump is the new prophet. I am not convinced that being a master of tautologies should be the primary qualification for the leader of a country. I am not convinced that “crazy making” will make the most effective tool of diplomacy. On the other hand, perhaps I am wrong and all we need to do is to build a larger version of Guantanamo Bay staffed by psychiatrists who are willing to just keep all the world leaders, except Mr. Trump, effectively drugged so that they do not experience such confusion and emotional discomfort from the experience of dealing with Mr. Trump. Perhaps we could label the new illness as Trumpism or Tautological Syndrome.
Since I am writing on St. Patrick’s Day I must acknowledge the assistance of the leprechauns since the muse seemed to be on break this morning.
Written March 17, 2016
RSS Feed