ALL SCI-FI

[Bud Brewster]

________________________________

The character of Spock, first introduced in Star Trek TOS, presented us with an entire race that valued logic and rejected emotions.

The concept sounds mighty cool, and science fiction fans all over the world have been discussing and debating it for the last 50+ years.

Kirk, Spock, and McCoy went head-to-head on this issue all through TOS. But I don't remember ever hearing anyone in the Star Trek franchise defining the subject in exactly the manner I'm about to present.

Maybe somebody did. But . . . I'm going to lay it out anyway. So, here it is.

The concept of "pure logic" . . . is pure nonsense.

It's like asking a calculator to write a poem. It can't do it. However, ask that calculator to perform any mathematical function and you'll get the correct answer every time.

Pure logic only produces existing answers to logical questions. Logic is just a way of arriving at conclusions which are part of a cause-and-effect relationship. It determines outcomes based on a series of events, and the outcome is always the same.

Example: If one person throws a ball at another person and aims it carefully, will the second person be able to catch it?

Logic dictates that the second person will indeed catch the ball.

But what if the first person is a baseball pitcher, and the second person is a catcher? In that situation, the pitcher's primary goal is not to make the ball easy to CATCH . . . it's to make the ball difficult to HIT by the batter!


__________


In other words, logic alone can't determine which outcome is desired in a given situation. A baseball pitcher has a specific goal which is determined by emotion, not logic.

The game of baseball itself is governed by emotion . . . not logic.

The fans of baseball are driven by emotion . . . not logic.

In these cases, the goals which are set by intelligent beings are not determined through purely logical processes — they're set by their own emotions.

Here's a stark example of what I mean.

If I'm holding a loaded gun in my hand and admiring its design, my goal is to safely examine this lethal object while being careful not to shoot myself in the head. My goal is to examine the gun without killing myself.

On the other hand, if I'm holding a loaded gun in my hand and I no longer wish to remain alive, my goal is to stick the gun my mouth and pull the trigger.

In each case, the actions I perform to achieve the goal I've set are not determined by logic — they're determined by the purely emotional goals I've chosen. There is no purely logical reason to exist . . . any more than there is no purely logical reason to destroy onerself.

To continue living or to stop living is a purely emotional choice. It all depends on the what the person wants to do.

Pure logic is just a means to determine what steps should be taken to achieve a specific goal. But the goal must be determined by emotions. Even self-preservation cannot be a purely logical goal.

It's not logical to expect a terminally ill patient in agonizing pain to chose continued existence over death. But that same person might decide to fight on, hoping that a cure will be discovered.

So, ladies and gentle, I submit that the Vulcan philosophy of "pure logic" is about as logical as tits on a boar hog.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)