Photo: Jurassic World (2015) |
APOLOGIA
By
Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, August 6, 2015
Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum is an argument strategy
that employs logic to tease out the truth that another argument or claim is
flawed. How? By reducing it to absurdity.
Let's
look at this argument strategy in general terms, and then let's illustrate with
a couple specific examples.
In
a reductio ad absurdum argument, we assume, temporarily for the sake of
argument, that the view under investigation is true. We approach the view in
question with the attitude, "Okay, let's say it's true. What
follows?" If the logical consequences of the view's assumed truth are
false or logically contradictory, then it follows that the view under
investigation is false or at least deeply problematic.
Here
is an example from contemporary popular moral thought.
Consider
the view that ethics is mere feeling, i.e., what's right and wrong is
fundamentally a matter of subjective opinion or taste—there is no real right or
wrong.
Let's
say this is true, for the sake of argument. What follows logically?
If
ethics is mere feeling, i.e., mere subjective opinion or taste, then right and
wrong mean "I like" and "I don't like," respectively. Ethics
becomes essentially similar to our attitudes to, say, food.
Just
as I like chocolate ice cream rather than vanilla, you like vanilla rather than
chocolate. No big deal. We're both right.
Cake:
yum! Kale: yuck! Good: yum! Bad: yuck! This is the ethics-is-mere-feeling view.
But
if the ethics-is-mere-feeling view is true (as we'll assume for the sake of
argument), then another claim follows logically as true: just as Jane likes
helping people and seeing them flourish, Joe likes torturing people and seeing
them writhe in pain. So, if it's true that ethics is mere feeling, then Jane
and Joe are both right ethically. No big deal.
Surely,
though, that Jane and Joe are both right is clearly false (we know this via
moral-rational insight). Hence, the assumption that ethics is mere feeling is
flawed.
Here
is another example from contemporary popular metaphysical thought (metaphysics
has to do with the reality of being).
Let's
say that personal identity, i.e., what I am, is wholly a personal matter—again,
a matter merely of subjective feeling. My feelings about myself and my identity
are trump.
Bruce
(Caitlyn) Jenner basically holds this view. He feels he is a woman so he is
a woman—and so he has had plastic surgery to "feminize" his face and throat,
had hormone therapy for growth of breasts, and may yet undergo genital surgery
to remove his testicles plus use his penis to construct a "vagina."
But
if the view that my feelings about myself and my identity are trump is true,
what follows?
It
means that we must accept the claims of "otherkin" as true. Otherkin
are people who self-identify as—i.e., who believe they actually are, at least
in part or wholly—non-human. They believe they are cats, foxes, dragons, etc.
If feelings are trump, then they are non-human in fact.
Moreover,
it means we must accept the claim of Adrian Van Oyen, who in a YouTube
"coming out" video, claims to be a dinosaur. Yes, a dinosaur. And,
according to Van Oyen, if you don't accept him for who he is, you are "transdinophobic."
(Note:
Van Oyen's two-minute video is a stunt, ending with an image of a "facepalm"
to the forehead; nonetheless, it makes an insightful philosophical point.)
Surely,
however, the alleged truth of the thesis that my feelings about myself and my
identity are trump lands us logically into obvious absurdities and falsehoods.
Regardless of what a man feels, he is in reality not a dinosaur, nor a cat, nor
a woman.
Feelings
are not trump. Reductio ad absurdum.
Objective
truth and reality are trump.
(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate
professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)
ADDENDA
A.
Here are a couple interesting reductio-ad-absurdum-related
bits located here because of space limitations in the main body of my column:
1.
If my feelings about myself and my identity are trump, then we should also accept
the claims of the "transabled." The transabled are people who feel
that they are imposters if their body is in full working order, so they seek to
amputate a limb or otherwise mutilate/ disable themselves. But the truth is
that you are not in fact an imposter if your body is in full working order. Again,
the alleged truth of the thesis that my feelings about myself and my identity
are trump lands us logically into obvious absurdities and falsehoods.
2.
The Bible is no stranger to logic (which makes good sense because God is the
Logos). In fact, the reductio ad absurdum
is employed in the New Testament. Paul preaches the resurrection of Jesus
(which he and others know to be true) and Paul addresses those who say there is
no resurrection of the dead. He argues "if there is no resurrection of the
dead, then not even Christ has been raised" (1 Cor. 15:13). But Paul adds
that he testifies to Christ being raised: "Christ has indeed been raised
from the dead" (1 Cor. 15:20a). That is, Paul and others know this to be
true. D.J. Hill, in New Dictionary of
Apologetics, concludes: "So, Paul shows that the assumption that there
is no resurrection leads to the contradiction that Christ has both been raised
and not raised from the dead." In other words, in view of the known fact
that Jesus was in fact raised from the dead, the claim that there is no
resurrection reduces to the absurd.
B.
For further discussion of reductio ad
absurdum arguments, see:
1.
Julian Baggini & Peter S. Fosl, The
Philosopher’s Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods,
2nd edition (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 121-122.
5 comments:
Here is another case the "triumph" of subjectivity over objective reality: trans-gender-and-trans-age-ism: 52-year-old man claims to be a 6-year-old girl.
Here is yet another case of the "triumph" of subjectivity over objective reality: a young woman believes she is a cat (3 minute interview).
Trans-species-ism, trans-gender-and-age-ism, trans-able-ism, etc. -- these constitute a reductio ad absurdum of the thesis that my feelings about myself and my identity are trump. That is to say, if mere subjectivity is sufficient justification for my identity, then (as we know) falsehoods and absurdities follow, so it's not true that mere subjectivity is sufficient justification for identity. The emperor of subjectivity (as criterion for objective truth) has no clothes.
Here is ANOTHER case of the "triumph" of subjectivity over objective reality: The man who became a woman then a dragon (3 minute video).
Another case of the "triumph" of subjectivity over objective reality: The men who live as dogs.
Post a Comment