Third Logic - "3L" / "Skeptics"

"Skeptic" (3rd Logic) 

Once again I will express heresy, but I will still say: skepticism is not philosophy at all, but psychology. The title "skeptic" deserves any holder of the 3rd Logic, regardless of the level of education and degree of philosophical training. It would be enough to deny the efficacy and necessity of the rational beginning in a human being to be in the camp of skeptics. 

However, the 3rd Logic would not be the Third Function if it were not internally bifurcated and, along with the fierce denial of reason, secretly worshipped it. The poet Alexander Blok almost cried out in his letters: "I know love, I know that 'reason' will not do, I don't want it, I throw it away, throw dirt on it, trample it underfoot," - but in one questionnaire he admitted: "My favorite quality is reason. 

Typical of the Third Function, love-hate in the 3rd Logic is original only in that it addresses human mental activity. 

* * * 

An ordinary, everyday "skeptic" is a silent person, very cautious in his assumptions and conclusions, who treats all kinds of categorical judgments with distaste and irony. Moreover, silence as a form of existence predominates. One female Logic 3 owner, who was married to a Logic 4 owner, once complained to me, "I know I'm smarter than he is, but I want to open my mouth but I can't. Something gets in the way." Indeed, the "skeptic" is almost always condemned to silence, although it weighs on him more than on anyone else. However, it is worth it for the "skeptic" to open his mouth from time to time, as he immediately hears from outside: "Shut up, you'll pass for smart," and he goes numb, catching air with his mouth. 

The only way for the 3rd Logic to protect itself from such traumas is to turn logic off from direct contact altogether. This is very much unwanted deep down and impossible in the conditions of modern society. Therefore, the "skeptic" has no choice but to limit himself or herself to minimal self-defense: fleeing from the most acute questions, discussions, disputes, and, most importantly, preventing attempts to use logic in conflict situations. Phrases like, "Let's not discuss!" "Stop talking!" - with which the 3rd Logic usually begins a conflict, pursue precisely this goal. Such demands are rarely heard by the grumpy opponents of the "skeptic," but he cannot avoid trying to protect himself from being hit where it hurts, so throughout the conflict he tries to take the fight to other functional levels, or, at the worst, to pretend to be deaf. 

Having an almost panic-stricken fear of an acute, venturesome argument, the "skeptic", at the same time, appreciates unhurried, benevolent, free conversation, in which there are no winners and losers and, therefore, no division into smarts and fools (3rd Logic is most afraid of getting into the latter). It values, even to put it bluntly, idle chatter, in which the process is much more valuable than the result. 

It is here that we discover that the supposed silent man is in fact monstrously verbose, that there is no greater joy for him than to murmur and murmur quietly, almost in a whisper, going over, like beads of rosary beads, topic by topic. 

The third Logic especially succeeds in two themes. The first is the classic skeptical one: about the inconsistency of reason (the work of Sextus Empiricus "Against the Logicians" can be considered as a benchmark in this field). Perhaps, and without competing with Sextus Empiricus, every "skeptic" contributes in this direction, very ingeniously, and most importantly, logically proving the uselessness of logic. Although even the ancient opponents of the first skeptics pointed out that it is not very correct to fight by reasoning against reasoning. But that is the two-faced dodginess of the 3rd Logic: to deny intelligence in such a way that everyone can say, "How clever is he!" 

Another topic or, better to say, sphere, in which the 3rd Logic breathes easily, is the border between knowledge and ignorance, that shaky strip where there are no dogmas yet, everything is just facts and facts, hypotheses and opinions. This is where the talent of the 3rd Logic, a great master of multi-variantism, exquisite paradoxes, speculative lace weaving and absurdity of any situation, unfolds in full force. I suppose the question, "How many angels can sit on the end of a needle?" - was invented by the 3rd Logic. 

Complexity of thought in general is internally closer to the 3rd Logic than simplicity. This circumstance is interesting because in philosophy there is a principle called "Occam's razor," according to which, of the two options for solving a problem: complex and simple, it is necessary to cut off the complex option as the most unproductive and cumbersome. So, the usual opposition between the First and the Third functions finds its embodiment here as well. The 1st Logic certainly accepts "Occam's razor", the 3rd Logic does not accept it at all and prefers the complex solution to the simple one. 

Much more caution than in the analysis of hypotheses and opinions is exercised by the 3rd Logic in the analysis of dogmas. Unlike the 2nd Logic, which is fearless enough to test even commonplace truths, the 3rd Logic does not feel as strong for open rebellion against them; its rebellion is hidden; it is a painful, painful, gradual, in the words of the great "skeptic" Kant, shaking off its "dogmatic sleep". 

* * * 

In describing Churchill's 3rd Logic, Lloyd George wrote: "Churchill's mind was a powerful mechanism. But in the construction of that mechanism, or perhaps in the materials of which it was composed, there was some incomprehensible defect that prevented it from always working properly. The critics could not say what it was. When the mechanism malfunctioned, its very power led to disaster, not only for itself, but also for the people with whom it worked. That is why the latter felt nervous about working with him. In their opinion, there was some fatal flaw in the metal from which it was cast. This weakness was put forward by Churchill's critics to justify their refusal to use his great powers at the moment. They did not see him as a positive quantity to be used in the hour of danger, but as an additional danger to be guarded against. 

Unfortunately, Lloyd George merely points out some flaw in Churchill's logic, but is apparently unable to articulate what it is. My attempts to question the holders of the 3rd Logic on this point were also not very fruitful. The answers were brief, and it was evident that the main difficulty for them was forming priorities, systematic thinking ("thoughts spread like crayfish"). Thinking 3rd Logic is a kind of labyrinth in which all paths are equally acceptable and there is no way out. 

A special topic: the relationship between thinking proper and speech. The key here can be found in the phrase of one owner of the 3rd Logic: "I cannot think and speak at the same time. An admirably accurate admission. 1st Logic thinks first, then speaks, 2nd Logic is able to do both at the same time. The 3rd Logic also aspires to the simultaneity of thinking and speaking, but practice shows that for it such a situation is an ideal, not reality. Gaps are constantly forming between the intellectual product and its realization, which have to be filled with all kinds of garbage in order to hide the defect. This is why one of the characteristic features of the 3rd Logic is the abundance of all kinds of trash words in speech, interjections, mooing and similar attempts to win time for reflection, while observing the appearance of continuity in the flow of speech. Boris Yeltsin's parodic "You see! Boris Yeltsin is an extremely vivid example of this kind of subterfuge. 

I suspect that for a considerable part of the holders of the 3rd Logic the problem is not so much in haphazard thinking and related doubts regarding mental abilities, as in stiffness and underdevelopment of the speech apparatus. Therefore, in the development of speech, starting from infancy, I see the main solution to the problem of "skepticism. Otherwise, the consequences can be most unfortunate. For example, Alexander Blok nearly died of hunger during the Civil War, because a ration was given to writers for lectures, and he was incapable of lecturing due to his innate "skepticism. Blok told his colleagues: "I envy you all: you can talk and read somewhere. But I can't. I can only read from what is written." 

An idea of the feelings experienced by the 3rd Logic when she finds herself in the department is given by excerpts from one letter to a psychiatrist: "I teach in a technical university...For the sixth month now I have been giving a course of lectures in my specialty... "Reading" is a misnomer. Not reading, but torturing and tormenting listeners... I go out to my students like a statue of a commander. Everything is wonderful and amazing: my tongue cannot move, my spine is stiff, I carry the weight of an Egyptian pyramid on my shoulders, but my brain, what's in my brain, I can't even understand. Smoke screen. I forget half the material, no notes help. 

Another source of intellectual failure for the "skeptic" is the very order of functions that put Logic down. Correctness of thinking is especially difficult for the 3rd Logic, because the stronger functions standing above it simply break its apparatus under themselves. The powerful, irrepressible "I want!" 1st Will easily turns into a clownish "I think!" 3rd Logic, and there's nothing you can do about it. 

Lermontov wrote: "I like to doubt everything: this disposition does not interfere with the decisiveness of my character. What the combination of "skepticism" and decisiveness of character leads to can be seen in the examples of two famous "skeptics" such as Napoleon and Hitler. They mocked common sense, not because they thought little and poorly, but because by the 1st Will they believed too much in themselves and in their right to rule the world to heed the reasonable babble of the 3rd Logic. Their Will, which is much higher than Logic, simply excluded from the circle of mulled over topics and facts such as it found sensitive for itself, and thus deliberately stupefied the work done by the strong mind of nature. In essence, the violence done to the 3rd Logic by the higher Will is what is commonly called "feminine logic," i.e., as one wit has defined it, it is "the unconscious conviction that objectivity can be overcome by one desire." The efficacy and infallibility of mental work depends not only and so much on the ability to think long and connectedly, but also on how honestly we think. Dishonesty is stupid, stupidity is dishonest--this is what all moral and intellectual evaluation should look at. 

* * * 

If the "skeptic" turns to politics, the first thing that characterizes him is a steadily strained relationship with the press. In democratic systems, the "skeptic" politician usually flees from the press, as President Reagan did. Under totalitarian regimes, the skeptic ruler fights it off with repression. Napoleon, for example, shut down 160 French newspapers in one day, put a heavy hand of censorship on the remaining ones, and claimed that a different newspaper was worth a thousand bayonets. In this statement of the great commander, as in a drop of water, is reflected the respect and the fear that the 3rd Logic constantly feels before the word that is difficult for it. 

* * * 

A few observations on the not-so-significant but characteristic features of the 3rd Logic. 

First. She is the main consumer of crossword puzzles, logic problems, and tests. All this intellectual production is an ideal testing ground, on which the 3rd Logic can check herself without interference and risk of serious injuries, find out how objective her inner feeling of her mental inferiority is. Although, in my opinion, crossword puzzles and tests are not capable of giving a true picture of the state of the logical apparatus. However, as a psychotherapeutic tool they are absolutely necessary, inspiring and comforting a large army of "skeptics. 

Second. The 3rd Logic, even without being emotional (i.e. with the 4th Emotion), is still prone to mysticism. The mechanism of this tendency is quite transparent. Congenital skepticism, which makes the 3rd Logic dislike rationality in search of something alternative and positive, automatically pushes the 3rd Logic into the camp of mysticism. However, usually the "skeptical" mysticism of the 4th Emotion is not deep and is limited to a tendency to superstition, as such famous "skeptics" as Reagan and Yeltsin have openly admitted. 

Third. If the 3rd Logic works in the artistic sphere, she is closer to such trends as expressionism, dadaism, surrealism, etc. The secret of this sympathy is just as simple: the "skeptic" cannot but be close to artistic movements that emphasize the irrational, aesthetic concepts that oppose the unconscious to the conscious, placing the latter much lower than the former.