Illogical Logic

Humans are curiously illogical. The slightest detail can conjure a whole slew of arbitrary conclusions. For example, the absence of suds in washing powder can make some imagine that the powder is not doing its job, despite the fact that stains are being effectively removed.

However, this apparent illogic is only so in relation to Age of Reason logic. By jumping to conclusions and strongly holding them, the human is by definition illogical especially when refusing to accept facts even in the face of evidence.

It would be interesting to consider how this illogic could have become so predominant amongst humans to the extent that most would dismiss offhand the in depth consideration of philosophies and ideals. (We shall ignore the fact that this is in and of itself a philosophy)

In times of greater scarcity, the ability to make snap decisions would very likely draw the line between survival and a very ugly death. If we go by the tenets of Darwinism, it would appear to be useful that humans can barely perceive things, decide whether they are worth considering, then discard them offhand to focus on more important things.

In most middle class urban existences, the consideration of things beyond “mere” survival (like logical thought, for example) would be more useful for survival in society. Despite this, the application of logical thought is still cumbersome and quite contrary to the way humans have been for the longest time: “Modern” life as is understood nowadays is merely a social construct dominated by the artificiality of “logic”.

The higher logic of philosophy and ideals is in and of itself of little merit in a harsher and more carnal existence. An example would be say…(to quote a cliché) living in a jungle. Therefore, the offhand rejection of Enlightenment-era logic is in and of itself logical – in the context of bare survival. Such is merely an alternative form of logic that is currently frowned upon if allowed to dominate one’s existence.