Ludicrous

Humans play games. The necessity for that seems built-in, since games of all kinds offer various proportions of expected and unexpected outcomes. The former provides the cognitive triumph of an outcome that one has judged correctly and/or well; the latter provides excitement and a break from routine. The problem with homo ludens, or 'game-playing man', is that he too often stumbles into the Ludic fallacy by either thinking that life mirrors games, or that games don't mirror life enough.

Recently (and still ongoing), I have been interlocuting with a gentleman who asserts that logic is important. I agree. However, I added the caveat that logic is not always the best tool. This, he violently disagrees with.

Here are the arguments he's tried so far:

1. Logic is the best tool because nothing else is a tool.

2. If logic does not succeed, you must be using a simplistic form of it.

Here is what I've said:

1. Some areas of human endeavour are not susceptible to logic.

2. Logic itself will tell you that it fails to provide an answer sometimes.

To me, it is a game, these acts of provocation. I don't know if I will ever convince the rationalists, atheists, or rational atheists. But I feel compelled to answer them at times. Oddly enough, I too am using logic. I am also aware that I am using logic in realms where it was not meant to go. But the paradox is that my interlocutors believe that logic can be taken anywhere, and that if the outcomes do not favour them, I must be misusing logic.

We all agree I am misusing logic; that much is clear. I believe I shouldn't be using it, they believe I am using it badly. But the point is equally clear, either way: there are things you can't use logic for. One of those things is justifying the use of logic using logic. Ho ho.