Logic is defined as (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=logic)
S: (n) logic (the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference)
S: (n) logic (reasoned and reasonable judgment) "it made a certain kind of logic"
S: (n) logic (the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation) "economic logic requires it"; "by the logic of war"
S: (n) logic (the system of operations performed by a computer that underlies the machine's representation of logical operations)
S: (n) logic, logical system, system of logic (a system of reasoning)
S: (n) logic (the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference)
S: (n) logic (reasoned and reasonable judgment) "it made a certain kind of logic"
S: (n) logic (the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation) "economic logic requires it"; "by the logic of war"
S: (n) logic (the system of operations performed by a computer that underlies the machine's representation of logical operations)
S: (n) logic, logical system, system of logic (a system of reasoning)
With the vast increase in literacy rates since 1900, it is logical to assume that people are getting more educated. With more people getting more educated, it is logical to assume that the world should be having less issues / crises. What defies logic is the fact that instead of progressing forward, I suspect that the human civilization is actually regressing backwards (http://correctiveactions.blogspot.com/2008/08/truth-about-humans-are-we-evolving-or.html). How so? I met E.T’s (http://correctiveactions.blogspot.com/2008/07/are-you-et.html) who are highly educated but do not behave as a highly educated person. We proudly call ourselves civilized (human civilization) but we conveniently forget our civilities when it comes to discussion on corrective actions.
If it is logical for humans to live together in peace, why have we not achieved world peace? As the number of educated people increases, how is it logical that the chances for world peace actually diminishes instead of being increased? The hostilities that are happening world wide are mainly due to misunderstanding arising from ignorance of political, religious or cultural differences from one another. I have yet to come across a country who can proudly claim that their country’s politics are not marred by dirt / grime / mud). Surely that is illogical because politics are meant to be clean but how is it that politicians end up becoming dirty?
All of the religions in the world preached about living together in harmony. Is it logical that we end up killing one another to uphold the good name of our religions? What if one day an alien race were to come in peace but they do not practice any of our religions? Do we tell them “I am sorry but I have to exterminate you because you are a pagan?”. I find such thinking highly illogical befitting a civilized person.
Cultural differences have sparked many deaths as well. I read that in India, where banned caste systems are still being practiced, young couples are executed by their own family members because they tried to marry some1 from a lower caste. Human race has 6,000 years of recorded history, despite all these years, is it logical for us to continue to behave how we had behaved?
One of the definitions for crazy is doing the same thing over and over again BUT expecting different results. Taking into consideration that human race is behaving the same way but expecting world peace without making the extra effort to do so is tantamount to crazy. Is this a logical assumption?
The corrective action for us to progress forward is to adopt a logical approach in whatever we do. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment