This is from my book Gornian Syntax.
I enjoy mathematics—a subject I've taught for many years! One thing mathematics has taught me is that logic is primarily about entailment, not truth.
Most people already know that logic by itself is certainly no guarantee of truth. After all, it’s entirely possible to have a perfectly consistent argument that is unsound.
Logic also tells us that an argument can only go where its premises point. Therefore, the more rigorous an argument, the more the old adage “garbage in, garbage out” applies. In other words, logical rigor is no guarantee of truth! In fact, if your premises are bad, logical rigor only makes matters worse!
So how can one get at the real truth of the matter? I have no idea! But I have a deep-seated intuition that only people who are a little crazy have access—or at least partial access—to the truth, because the truth is a little crazy! Can I prove this? Perhaps in a crazy sort of way, I could. Suffice it to say, I find much comfort in the old saying that “truth is stranger than fiction.”
If this is all true, it goes a long way toward explaining why the Western philosophical tradition, so enamored of rational argumentation, feels so devoid of truth.1 It’s too damn sensible—that is, not crazy enough—to get at the truth of the matter! When I study Western philosophers, I don’t feel more enlightened—but I do feel more argumentative. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. Sometimes I enjoy being argumentative. Other times, I don’t. I suppose it’s a bad thing when I’m not in the mood to argue, and a good thing when I feel a little feisty.
Now, I'd like to ask: if consistency is no guarantee of truth, then is it equally true that inconsistency is no guarantee of falsity?
I find that I myself contain contradictions. And if that is so, then how much more could God—who is absolutely infinite—harmonize seemingly contradictory opposites?
Indeed, I rather agree with Nicholas of Cusa that consistency is important in many domains, but not in all. In particular, Cusa wisely holds that the principle of contradiction—and all ordinary principles of human reason—utterly break down before the divine mystery.
In short, I’m basically a proponent of the coincidence of opposites. Now that strikes me as crazy enough to be true!
One possibly crazy way of getting at the truth is through poetry, so I’ll end with this:
The wisdom of the old birch is this:
That when the wind blows,
He sighs and sways.
- If I were in a more Western mood, I would probably object to this—especially if discussing Leibniz! Leibniz always amazes me. ↩︎