This is another one of those entries I’ve been meaning to get to for what feels like forever – a bit of a look into how I view the nature of discourse or, more correctly, how I come to the conclusions and opinions I have about reality.
Simply put, as the title states, I feel there is a logic to everything, and I try to articulate the logic chain used to form my opinions alongside said opinions so that the reasoning can be followed by the reader.
In short, while I will state I think, let’s say, X is better than Y, I will explain why I have come to this opinion, citing several factors and contrasting aspects of the idea, where necessary, to show the value in those factors.
This, however, seems to be an incredibly odd concept to many online. They don’t seem to get that people might actually have reasons for disagreeing with them on something! *gasp* THE HORROR! They seem unable to comprehend not only that someone might not think the same way as them, but that this person may have actually thought out why they feel they way they do, and can present this reason.
I should say maybe it’s not that they can’t understand this, as they most often have their own reasons for their opinions that they will happily share with or without you inquiring – no, it’s more of a case they don’t comprehend that an opinion might be reached with good reasoning, or that an opinion might be being disagreed with not because of the conclusion but because the reasoning itself is bad – read, the logic being used to come to that conclusion is bad.
That is the crux of all my positions, decisions, statements, opinions, whatever word you wish to use to describe any concept I put out there: It isn’t so much the end concept but the reasoning I use to come to that conclusion. It’s the logic itself that’s important, over anything else.
If I say I don’t like something, and leave it at that, or just say “this sucks” without any reasoning, well, that’s of little value, isn’t it? Now, for contrast, if I say I don’t like this or that for a list of reasons and give additional information to support those reasons, then you have something of value.
If you pay attention to my writings, you will notice in most every case I try, as best as I can, to explain my thoughts on everything. That’s kind of the point, after all, of such expression: to share the reasoning behind the conclusion, rather than the conclusion itself.
Sadly, few people it seems understand this. They place so much value in the end concept and not the structure of that idea that they miss the point entirely, and it’s a damn shame. It makes conversation with many people effectively impossible as no matter what you say, they won’t “get it.” They can never get it because they think in binary terms, never understanding that there’s a path to the conclusion that’s a very gray area. It isn’t even that conclusions are not just black and white – they too can be multi-faceted, complex mixtures in their own right, but again, the reasons behind something are the key thing to focus on.
That’s why I write the way I do; to ensure the logic used to reach my conclusion is shared in some form. Some of it may be abstract, but I share it, and I share it with the belief that it checks as “sane” (as in, the computer logic concept of sane, or valid.) If the logic is bad, then the conclusion reached is meaningless, and that’s a battle I find myself fighting more often than not in virtually every discussion – poor logic.
Look back at the kid who wanted to argue with me about the PlayStation 5 backwards compatibility rumors. He was so hell bent that rumor websites were correct that he doubled down, only for me to be proven correct in the end. Why? Because his logic was flawed. He felt some “commercial” which didn’t exist that he claims he saw, and some rumor site articles that he honestly thought were true trumped my critical take on the situation – that information had not been verified, that rumors often prove untrue, and, most importantly, that Sony would have no financial incentive to actually do such.
Yet, he believed the rumors over me, and was proven wrong. Of course he never came back to admit it – why would he? This is what kills me, that people refuse to acknowledge this, or ever learn or understand why they may have been wrong, or why I countered them.
No, I’m not saying I’m right all the time. Far from it, I’m wrong my fair share of times, but when that happens I’ll admit it, and I still feel that my reasoning was sound, unless I find critical fault in it after the fact, which has happened before.
Others, however, just don’t seem to get it. There’s a reason for everything we feel. There is a logic to every thought, and that’s the important thing. That simple. It either works, or it doesn’t, and if I find the logic flawed, I’ll speak against it. If I find the logic valid, I’ll say as much. People can disagree with me about things and have perfectly valid reasons for it. That’s all I care about, the reasons. So long as it works, then good. All is well.
On the contrast, however, if it’s a terrible concept, then it simply doesn’t work. That’s all there is to it.