Agere Philosophiam
By FORREST ZENG ‘26
The following Op-Ed imitates a Socratic Dialogue, a writing style commonly used by the Greek philosopher Plato.
Two students in formal clothing walk along a path, heading to EPAC. Their heads hang low, dejectedly.
Student 1: A trampoline floor, how disappointing.
Student 2: It seemed to me that there was a real safety concern, though.
Student 1: Perhaps. We have perhaps an hour left before check-in. What do you say we go to the basement and play a game of Risk?
Student 2: A sufficient replacement — Oh, but I just remembered. There was an audio recording that my friend, Sam, had me listen to. Supposedly, he was recording an interview for an article we were working on. Still, the interview strayed a bit off the path.
Student 1: Irresponsible.
Student 2: Perhaps at first, yes, but it captured a magical interaction.
The students arrive in the basement and begin to set up the game of Risk.
Student 1: Perhaps you could play this file for me?
Student 2: I wish, yet it has been buried under hundreds of other files. I couldn’t possibly find it. I will try my best to describe what I heard to you.
The article was for a “CVP of the week” section in the paper. The CVP of that week was one called “Question Everything.” We found out that the CVP was deeply philosophical. Sam was interviewing one of the facilitators, Andrew. The interview eventually turned into a meta-discussion on philosophy itself. It went a bit like this:
Sam asked Andrew, “You say that in your CVP, you will be trying to listen to as many perspectives as possible on certain philosophical topics, such as epistemology or politics, while also maintaining a sense of ‘reason’ and ‘logic.’”
“Let me ask you this: when we say we are reasonable, do we mean the same thing as being logical? If a person has reason, is that necessarily the same as a person that has logic?”
“Right,” Andrew responded.
“From my understanding, logic, reason, and rationality don’t necessarily result in ‘different interpretations.’ In mathematics, the ultimate answer to a question is always the same as long as the mathematical operations are done correctly. Likewise, in logic, if each logical operation is correct, then the result must always be the same. How do you reconcile a philosophically logical approach to questions with the diversity of opinions in your CVP?”
“Sam, you have asked me a trick question.”
From the recording, I could tell Sam was confused. “What do you mean?”
“Well, then, let me ask you this. When we say something is logical, what do we refer to? Do we refer to the products or the processes of deriving the products? Is logic a result or a process?”
Sam paused, then responded, “I suppose the process.”
“This is why we use the phrase ‘logical step.’”
“It seems to be.”
“As humans, did we decide one day to create logic?”
“Well, I suppose not. Most logic seems quite natural.”
“Logic is something in nature, then. It simply exists in this universe for us humans to discover. Logic is the natural procession from one idea to another by the laws of the universe. For instance, let us say that:
If a chemical allows itself to duplicate well, there will be more of that chemical.
Chemicals have variations in how well they can duplicate.”
“Yes.”
“Then, using ‘logic,’ we can derive the result: This chemical becomes better and better at duplicating itself.”
“Interesting, yes.”
“As humans, we never invented logic. Instead, we found logic in nature, hence the Latin verb ‘invenio’ meaning ‘to find.’ We eventually identified this ‘duplicating chemical’ as DNA, and the logical process that it is involved in is ‘natural selection.’ Ironically, we can say that logic created humans in this way.”
Sam thought about this momentarily, then added, “By that definition, logic is quite elegant. Yet certainly, logic is much more complex. I can intuitively understand logic but can’t quite explain it in words.”
“Logic is very complicated in the sheer number of conditions we might find in nature,” Andrew responded. “However, the simple steps between conditions are what we describe as logic. There is nothing more to it.”
“I see now. But how does this connect to our discussion about the CVP? This definition of logic, in fact, only supports the idea that only one possible conclusion can be reached through logic.”
“I am getting there. Earlier, I said, Sam, and you mentioned that in our CVP, we would attempt to question things through a reasoned and logical mindset. Let me ask you this: when we say we are reasonable, do we mean the same thing as being logical? If a person has reason, is that necessarily the same as a person that has logic?”
“By the definition of these words, it seems like they would be the same.”
“Let us take this example then: I am hungry. There is a sandwich sitting in front of me, which is edible. Logic tells me, then, that I should eat it. This is logical.”
“Yes, it is.”
“Right. But it is also logical if I say this: I am hungry. There is a human in front of me called Sam, and he is edible. Logic tells me that I should commit cannibalism. Surely we don’t want this?”
“Absolutely not.”
“But you can see that this is still ‘logical,’ yes?”
“It is logical, but it is missing many other things.”
“Would you call it reasonable?”
“No, and I would consider eating a sandwich to be much more reasonable.”
“Philosophers are masters of logic. Oftentimes, however, philosophers are illuded by the tantalizing fruit of ignoring reason and only using logic. Logic can create political and economic utopias, which work very well to achieve a single end.”
“So we have shown, then, that reason is much different from logic. Reason includes logic, but it also includes so many other conditions. In our example, reason includes societal values, laws, and other things which we adapt as humans.”
Sam added, “Then, although it is logical, it wouldn’t be reasonable to consider crime as a method to gain profit.”
“Precisely. Perhaps another example would help to strengthen this comparison.”
“Please proceed.”
“Alright. Plato makes the famous analogy of ‘the Ring of Gyges.’ In this analogy, a shepherd named Gyges is given a ring that makes him not only physically invisible but also completely exempt from punishments by society. Plato goes on to describe how Gyges immediately kills the king of Lydia, seduces his wife, and then takes over the kingdom.”
“Yes, I remember this,” Sam said. “If I recall, Plato wrote, ‘A man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity…for all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice,’”
Andrew continued. “In other words, every logical man would immediately commit as many profitable crimes as possible after gaining the Ring of Gyges, as it would logically be more beneficial to them. However, a fundamental flaw changes the picture—man is not a logician but a reasoner. A perfectly ‘reasonable’ man would have refrained from committing crimes for a short time, for they are still motivated by some sense of ‘human morality.’ They are logical, but they would still be human. Only after a long period, would their moral values fade, and their logic would lead them to begin committing crimes.”
“Absolutely.”
Student 1: Sorry to interrupt, but we have set up the game board and are ready to play.
Student 2: Ah, yes, I apologize.
Student 1: Please don’t be sorry—finish your story while you place your pieces.
Student 2: Actually, the audio recording ended around here, as they both decided to head to class. But Sam later recounted their continued conversation. He said something like this:
Almost immediately after sitting down outside of their Latin classroom, they continued. At this point, Forrest, who was also in the same class as them, entered the hallway, panting. After asking him, Forrest said that he had raced from Phelps to the Academy Building to not be late, before realizing that his teacher had not used the long block. Andrew filled him up on the conversation.
Sam asked, “You make this differentiation between logic and reason. Certainly, as philosophers, we want to try and focus on being both logical and reasonable?”
Forrest said. “Philosophers are masters of logic. Oftentimes, however, philosophers are illuded by the tantalizing fruit of ignoring reason and only using logic. Logic can create political and economic utopias, which work very well to achieve a single end. However, these structures would be unacceptable to most ‘reasonable’ humans because utopias do not consider many ‘human’ values. In this way, the usefulness of logic is limited by the human condition.”
“That seems unfortunate.”
“On the surface, it does seem unfortunate. At this point, philosophers might feel stuck. They come upon systems that are created with logic, but these systems have no use. Perhaps this is why very few philosophers truly follow the ‘perfect’ systems they have themselves developed. One rare example might be the French philosopher Simone Weil.
Throughout her life, Weil was an avid political activist, examining industrial society, totalitarianism, and religion, all during wartime. Interestingly, she followed her philosophy to the letter without lapse. At age five, she refused to eat sugar because the French troops on the front lines did not have any. Throughout her life, she never ate any more than relief rations and took a job in an automobile factory for a year in order to understand the psychological effects of heavy labor. At the end of her life, Weil died from starvation, refusing to eat food in solidarity with poor country citizens in occupied lands. Her fanatical activism was unparalleled, and in fact, stands out as a great exception among almost all philosophers.”
“It would be essentially impossible to quickly impose a utopia on a people, without changing the people’s values, and thus their reasoning.”
“Well, this is certainly laudable.”
“It can be seen as so, but was it really a reasonable thing to do?”
“I suppose not.”
“This shows that most philosophers are humans, who have human limits.”
Sam thought for a little bit, then responded, “Right, but this does not indicate to us that we shouldn’t at least think about theoretical systems. At least we may strive towards it.”
Forrest responded, “Let me ask you then: is it easy to follow a system that has different values than our own?”
“It is uncomfortable because our values are not congruent with it.”
“In this sense, if we have a perfectly logical society with no extra conditions, and try to impose it on a reasonable society based on extremely human principles, surely it would be uncomfortable for the human society?”
“I suppose so.”
“So, it would be essentially impossible to quickly impose a utopia on a people, without changing the people’s values, and thus their reasoning.’”
“I see now. It would be impossible to do that.”
“To drive philosophy to be productive, we need to understand the human values which form the field upon which philosophical systems shall play out.”
“To make the most fruit of our efforts, we must consider human things. Not understanding the real, human part of things is essentially useless.”
“I agree, but surely there must be some way of achieving utopia without compromising the concept itself. We have concluded that a perfect utopia system is useless unless it makes some sort of concessions to human values. But surely there must be a way to preserve this utopian core while not making concessions to human values?.”
At this moment, Forrest’s eyes opened wide. “You are right. Suppose we want to preserve the elegant, perfect models that we create. In that case, we should not remove things from them but transform them and add things that can circumvent or perhaps even manipulate human values. To drive philosophy to be productive, we need to understand the human values which form the field upon which philosophical systems shall play out.”
And this is where they had to end, for they began Latin class.
Student 1 places a piece on the board confidently.
Student 1: A fascinating discourse. In addition, I have surrounded your land. Perhaps you shall find it appropriate to broker a compromise with me now or even resign.
Student 2: I see no use in giving up or conceding.
Ava Zhao / The Exonian via Midjourney