Vulcan Philosophy

[Hippokrene]

I’m trying to find practical and theoretical information on Vulcan philosophy as set down by Surak and practiced by Vulcans. I’ve experienced numerous problems, despite Vulcans being one of the iconic races of Star Trek, there appears to be little information on exactly what the Teachings of Surak were and how Vulcan’s apply them to their lives.

For instance, we know that Vulcans are vegetarians that don’t touch their food, but we’re never told why. It’s possible both of those aspects of Vulcan behavior predate Surak.

We’re told that Vulcans attempt to ‘be logical’ but that’s about as useful a philosophy as ‘be nice*.’ If a group of humanoids are infected with a lethal, rapidly spreading disease, it’s logical to wipe them out, yet there’s evidence that Vulcan’s also possess a sense of compassion that would prevent them from doing so. As Surak began his teachings to combat the destruction wars were causing on his homeworld, it’s possible that he advocated Reason + Compassion + Respect for Diversity.

I’d prefer material from the shows and books as, while I appreciate fan work, I’d like to stay as true to the official version of Vulcans as possible.

* For instance, two people could have very different views on the death penalty or homosexuality, and both would be logical in that their conclusion comes from their premises, but their premises would have to be based on opinions. At the moment, ‘Human life is valuable’ or ‘Sexual orientation is an expression of genetics’ are both opinions.

[roguephoenix]

well as you've already noticed, they try to live their lives like in their teachings but it doesn't always work out that way. they do have emotions so compassion, as much as they would like to supress it, is there. logic can be manipulated in many different ways depending on who's making the argument. as the example you made, if certain people are terminally sick and highly contagious, in your logic they should just be killed. another vulcan might find that illogical as there could be another solution. it's illogical to proceed with things without having all the facts and knowing the consequences. logic will need "all the cards on the table" to be known, as much as possible. that's where the problem is in following logic strickly. it's like one of the 10 commandments say "thou shal not kill" but the people preaching that same thing have no problems killing. it's up for interpretation and varies in degree.

i think their philosophy is still a work in progress as much as any of ours are so you'll always find contradictions.

... or where you just asking where to find info? >_<

[prometheuspan]

actually, the best way to get a sense of it would be to just pick up a human logic textbook. There is plenty of clues to go on that logic for vulcans is based on the same universal principles as human logic.

Incidentally, human logic if applied could solve a whole host of problems
that humans are having ...

http://mytalktoday.com/solutions/vie...90a0309c9f04e7

[Hippokrene]

Roguephoenix,

It’s all good. I’d like more official information, but thoughts about Vulcan philosophy in general are fine.


I agree that two different Vulcans could disagree with one another on a wide range of issues even if they shared the same core values. This thread was prompted by a situation in a RPG I’m part of, in which my Vulcan PC can choose to disregard the distress a hologram is showing or not.

There are a number of holograms lose on the ship, and she has been reacting to them as though they were people. That is, if they’re hostile, she tries to subdue them, but if they’re not hostile, she takes them to a spot they can ‘hang out’ while the crew fixes the problem. While escorting a hologram, she comes across a group of security guards fleeing from a massive dragon. She’s able to get everyone into the protection of the Jeffries Tubes, but they’ve reached a section without holographic emitters.

The hologram, upon seeing her arm disappear, freaks out and refuses to go further. I’m not trying to figure out how much effort, if any, my character would expend to see the hologram ‘safely’ reach one of the observation lounges.

This isn’t the first time where I’ve found myself baffled because I couldn’t properly construct her mindset.

[Hippokrene]

prometheuspan wrote:

---

actually, the best way to get a sense of it would be to just pick up a human logic textbook. There is plenty of clues to go on that logic for vulcans is based on the same universal principles as human logic.

I am familiar with informal logic. There's no logic textbook that can explain to me why Vulcans don't eat with their hands or dislike talking about personal issues.

Vulcan Philosophy is more than logic. It's a set of beliefs, and I'm interested in getting information on those beliefs. According to memory alpha "The Vulcans reasoned that complete dedication to logic could allow for weakness and frailty to arise and endanger them.."

[Herkimer Jitty]

Vulcan seems like a very strict and regulated society, deeply rooted in ancient traditions and mysticism. While logical, the Vulcans seem to have deep, deep, deep spiritual beliefs. Stringent devotion to logic is the norm for society, and in TMP, when Spock refused to complete Kolinahr, the priestess seemed quite visibly disgusted (indicating a very strong taboo) and what we know of Spock's childhood indicate he was discriminated against quite a lot. Vulcan society seems very homogeneous, to an extreme. Most of that is cultural observations, and some of it is my own extrapolation of onscreen evidence, but it should be applicable to a study of Vulcan philosiphy.

[Hippokrene]

Herkimer Jitty wrote:

---

Vulcan seems like a very strict and regulated society, deeply rooted in ancient traditions and mysticism. While logical, the Vulcans seem to have deep, deep, deep spiritual beliefs. Stringent devotion to logic is the norm for society, and in TMP, when Spock refused to complete Kolinahr, the priestess seemed quite visibly disgusted (indicating a very strong taboo) and what we know of Spock's childhood indicate he was discriminated against quite a lot. Vulcan society seems very homogeneous, to an extreme. Most of that is cultural observations, and some of it is my own extrapolation of onscreen evidence, but it should be applicable to a study of Vulcan philosiphy.

These are all great observations. Thank you.

[Timo]

...the same universal principles as human logic.

It should be noted that calling human logic "universal" tends a bit towards hubris. Just because we have formulated a set of rules that jibe nicely with the worldview of a warm-blooded biped that has eyes and fingers does not mean they would carry any sort of "real" universality.

Anything from elementary algebra and boolean operators to the convoluted rules on the use of language can be contested in light of the now-evident differences between that which has traditionally been observable and that which is now believed to be true of the structure of the universe. Even the thing we hold the most sacred in terms of both mathematics and logic, the inevitability of conservation laws (essentially, the belief that n minus n equals zero), appears to be but a convoluted inconvenience when we deal with modern cosmology or particle physics. Another species, looking at the world differently, might well refuse to build its logic, mathematics and natural sciences on conservation laws.

Not that we'd currently have anything better to go by than our classic symbolic logic - and probably this will always suffice for "everyday" use. But it certainly shouldn't be considered an underlying property of the structure of the universe or anything.

Timo Saloniemi

[prometheuspan]

Hippokrene wrote:

---

I am familiar with informal logic. There's no logic textbook that can explain to me why Vulcans don't eat with their hands or dislike talking about personal issues.

Vulcan Philosophy is more than logic. It's a set of beliefs, and I'm interested in getting information on those beliefs. According to memory alpha "The Vulcans reasoned that complete dedication to logic could allow for weakness and frailty to arise and endanger them.."

Obviously, you are talking about the irrational aspects of their culture.
That I can't help you with other than as conjecture.

Xenopsychology attempts to make sense of potential alien psychology in terms of its evolutionary and ecological inputs. Thus we should assume
via logic that the reasons for such vulcan cultural ideas do stem from
their evolotionary process and their ecology. Not touching ones food for instance is an easy to explain idea just like our own ideas about food and cleanliness, as is relative to disease. Obviously the best anybody can do is absorb the canon facts and then simulate them adding conjectural details.
Many authors have done this and it makes for interesting slices and possibilities.

The reason why very little information comes out is that any given detail has to be invented or created. They didn't do this systemically, which would be the rational way to do it; IE, if it was me, I'd model the planet and its ecology and create a full story for the vulcan civilization full of details. Gene Roddenberry didn't do that and now hes gone.

It should be noted that calling human logic "universal" tends a bit towards hubris. Just because we have formulated a set of rules that jibe nicely with the worldview of a warm-blooded biped that has eyes and fingers does not mean they would carry any sort of "real" universality.

I disagree, i think 1+1= 2 is going to be a constant no matter where you go.

Anything from elementary algebra and boolean operators to the convoluted rules on the use of language can be contested in light of the now-evident differences between that which has traditionally been observable and that which is now believed to be true of the structure of the universe. Even the thing we hold the most sacred in terms of both mathematics and logic, the inevitability of conservation laws (essentially, the belief that n minus n equals zero), appears to be but a convoluted inconvenience when we deal with modern cosmology or particle physics. Another species, looking at the world differently, might well refuse to build its logic, mathematics and natural sciences on conservation laws.

Which misses the point that the laws of conservation of mass and energy do apply at any scale we come into contact with and in any conditions we are likely to encounter. Just as our sciences recognize that there are exotic exceptions to such rules, so would anybody. They would still recognize those rules because any scientific process would reveal them, and no scientific progress could be made past those levels without them.

Not that we'd currently have anything better to go by than our classic symbolic logic - and probably this will always suffice for "everyday" use. But it certainly shouldn't be considered an underlying property of the structure of the universe or anything.

Its clear that the symbols we use to describe the universe are our own. The relationships those symbols describe are however universal. Logic of the human sort should thus translate into logic of the Vulcan sort, just like an alien language would have its own equivalent of nouns and verbs.

Some theoretical math would not be the same at all, but in general, the laws of the universe are the same and thus
descriptions of the universe which are technological will end up with obvious translations.

[Timo]

I disagree, i think 1+1= 2 is going to be a constant no matter where you go.

Oh, some readily contest that. Nature doesn't require the existence of numbers other than zero and one, really. Any time a human argues that there are two of something, nature may argue back that there are only one and another one, dissimilar at a fundamental level, and only grouped together by warm-blooded bipeds for the sake of convenience.

The human approximation or convention that 1+1=2 may hold true in most contexts, yes. This doesn't mean that other sentiences would use this crutch in their dealings with nature, though.

Which misses the point that the laws of conservation of mass and energy do apply at any scale we come into contact with and in any conditions we are likely to encounter. Just as our sciences recognize that there are exotic exceptions to such rules, so would anybody.

Yet those exceptions are the reason I argue that the laws are not inherent in nature. They are just commonly valid approximations - and while warm-blooded bipeds will probably universally grow up believing in those approximations and thus build their picture of nature around them, other types of sentience need not come from the same starting point, or cling to the same original assumptions at their possibly much later stage of development.

Logic of the human sort should thus translate into logic of the Vulcan sort, just like an alien language would have its own equivalent of nouns and verbs.

Certainly Vulcans would be almost indistinguishable from humans in every practical respect. It is just the theoretical basis of "fundamental" logic that I dispute, as there could well be sentiences far more exotic than pointy-aired, copper-blooded human-equivalents.

Timo Saloniemi

[prometheuspan]

The human approximation or convention that 1+1=2 may hold true in most contexts, yes. This doesn't mean that other sentiences would use this crutch in their dealings with nature, though.

I understand what you are saying, and it makes plenty of sense from the
"thou shalt not be cognicentric" rule of xenopsychology, however, I would point out that several different earth cultures came up with the idea of counting independently of each other, and that tests performed with
smarter animals demonstrates that they seem to be able to count as high as 4 or 5. I think designing an alien culture without the concept of counting is a fascinating idea, but getting back to vulcans. They have math, they count. Notice spock in fact tends to habitually count and quantize everything, much to the annoyance of the humans around him.

Yet those exceptions are the reason I argue that the laws are not inherent in nature. They are just commonly valid approximations

Absolutely true, which is why an alien civilization might come up with a definition for the idea different than "law" equal in translation to
"commonly valid approximations." they would still come up with the ideas,
because without them you can't have technology.

- and while warm-blooded bipeds will probably universally grow up believing in those approximations and thus build their picture of nature around them, other types of sentience need not come from the same starting point, or cling to the same original assumptions at their possibly much later stage of development.

Clearly you and i do not reify those approximations, so your point is merely an over generalization of human nature and xenopsychology. WE have no reason to assume one way or the other. What we know is that those aproximations hold true and that any civilization with advanced technology must use similar approximations.

Certainly Vulcans would be almost indistinguishable from humans in every practical respect. It is just the theoretical basis of "fundamental" logic that I dispute, as there could well be sentiences far more exotic than pointy-aired, copper-blooded human-equivalents.

I think it would be fascinating and worthwhile to attempt to get this board to add a forum named xenopsychology in which any given thread is an exploration of an alien species and its psychology, and i think you create some interesting premises for exotic species. The basics of formal logic and conversational logic are in my opinion probably closer to universal than not.
Until we meet some alien species, all either one of us has is conjecture. (or past life memories...)

My opinion is that there would be enormous differences in how those ideas were expressed, but i still think they would be more or less the same set of ideas. I'm open to the possibility that this is a cognicentric bias, but i don't think that it is.

[Timo]

I have the nagging feeling that if we came to contact with a sentience sufficiently alien to require the very basics of logic as the common ground in communication, there would be other hindrances that would make mutual understanding almost impossible; and that if we truly met a sentience that didn't accept our logic, communication would be impossible due to other factors already...

Vulcan xenopsychology is something I feel confident in speculating on, though - not the least, of course, because Vulcans are fiction, and moreover, fiction based on human sensibilities. Sorry about the above side-step; by all means let's do some basic speculation on the original topic here.

The Surakian disdain of flesh-eating we might attribute to simple respect for complex forms of life, although perhaps in a hierarchial manner somewhat more logical than the simplistic concept of all death=bad, all life=good.

We could also argue that there are seeds for conflict in both agriculture and hunting in a desert environment. In agriculture, limited arable land would bring conflicts to a point - but in hunting, going after limited prey would mean actively moving into and through the territory of thy neighbor, armed, and in a manner not unlike a military expedition. Hunting and its consequences and connotations might thus be something Surakians would wish to erase from Vulcan tradition, as a measure that aids in accepting Surakian pacifism.

A closed-cycle economy and ecology with limited resources and possibilites for mobility would also be excellent breeding grounds for isolationism and xenophobia. Vulcans would just take a more intellectual tack at this than their Romulan brethren.

A society of isolated villages would require inter-village interaction to be biologically viable, though. Thus, carefully regulated mating and breeding would be natural consequences. Indeed, the telepathic need to go mate with a specific individual, possibly beyond high mountains, rather than one's closest cousin, could be an evolutionary adaptation rather than just a cultural quirk; the entire Vulcan telepathy might stem from this vital "distant heat" sense.

OTOH, not touching one's food would be simple pragmatic logic - the hygienic use of chopsticks rather than fingers has often been quoted as an important factor in how the Chinese were able to effortlessly outbreed the medieval Europeans and defeat infant mortality limitations. And Vulcans would have a keen interest in cutting down on infant mortality, if they can only breed every seventh year...

Timo Saloniemi

[prometheuspan]

http://sfc.strategyplanet.gamespy.co...an_history.htm

The history of the planet Vulcan has been a great mystery to many beings both in and outside of the United Federation of Planets (UFP). Vulcans tend to be a very private people and only reveal that which is necessary. This secrecy about their past and some of their customs is protected under the terms of their membership in the Federation. Much of the known history of the Vulcan home planet is sketchy or even contradictory. Even the name of their planet has caused confusion. The real name of their planet was not revealed at first contact with Earth and was unknown for many years early in the UFP. Due to the pronunciation of a term that the first Vulcans used to refer to themselves, humans after first contact called the Vulcans "Voolcanu" and therefore inferred the name of their homeworld to be "Voolcan". After the formation of the UFP, Vulcans became known as "Vulcanians" and their planet was called "Vulcanis". In time, the shared term "Vulcan" for the people and their planet came into popular use and it continues to this day. Modern Vulcans call themselves "Vuhlkanu" or "Vuhlkansular", and the official name for their planet is T'Khasi, a very ancient word. Below we will attempt to fill in some knowledge gaps and present a condensed history of the planet T'Khasi. In this essay, we will use the word "Vulcan" for their planet because of its widespread familiarity.


Dif-tor heh smusma.. (Live long and prosper!)



Ambassador Sarek & Lady Amanda



Suggested readings:

"Vulcans I Have Met" by James T. Kirk, Admiral, Starfleet, United Federation of Planets Press, San Francisco, Earth

"Life Among the Vulcans" by Amanda Grayson, wife of Sarek, Vulcan Academy of Sciences, Shi'Kahr, Vulcan

"T'Khasi: A Guide to Vulcan" by T'Lahr and Solak, visiting lecturers, Cornell University Press, New York, Earth

"Vulcan", Encyclopedia Galactica, 5th Edition, Centaurus

"Psthan na'Olozhika," by Sarek, Vulcan Ambassador to the U.F.P., Vulcan Psychology Monthly, Shi'Kahr, Vulcan

http://overtherainbough.blogspot.com...of-vulcan.html

I'm cross posting it because I am particularly fond of it. Click on the link if you want to see the pretty pictures that go along with it.

The Logic of Vulcan

As an avid fan and regular viewer of Star Trek (in its many iterations) I often find myself contemplating the reasoning underlying the different premises, cultures, and characters we are presented with in the Star Trek universe. I once gave a speech, for example, on why the Federation was socialist. My reasoning being the strange lack of currency and major business interests (that weren’t tied to the federation in some way) on Earth.

Recently I have been watching new episodes of Enterprise, the Star Trek prequel series that is now in its 4th season. This year the writers have apparently decided to better fill out the history, religion, and character of Vulcan society. The theme that arises again and again is that “logic” is not only at the core of Vulcan spirituality but defines on the deepest level what it means to be Vulcan (whether these are two distinct ideas or one in the same is a matter of opinion).

Right now on Enterprise, Vulcan society is rediscovering the teachings of their most revered spiritual leader, Surak. Yet in spite of having lost the knowledge of these teachings for many centuries They obviously did not lose their beliefs regarding the way Vulcan’s should and should not behave. Basically they believe that to be Vulcan is to be a stoic being that holds logic above all else, and that any display or experience of emotion is a weakness that will ultimately hinder them in the execution of their duties and obligations.

In the Star Trek universe, and indeed on Vulcan, logic and emotion are opposites. One is a strength, and the other a diametrically opposed weakness. The problem with this view however is revealed when examining the broader academic categories under which these two terms fall. Logic is philosophically an aspect of epistemology (the study of knowledge i.e. how we know what we know). Emotion falls within psychology (a science studying the cognitive and physiological causes of behavior).*

The point is that making the two opposites combines philosophy and psychology in a manner that they do not combine. Logic is a system designed to analyze identity. It gives us a means of checking to see if our premises are consistent with or contradictory to each other (it will not necessarily tell us if they are true), and for identifying conclusions that result from a set of premises etc. Emotion to be the opposite, and in the Vulcan view a necessary underminer of logic, it would have to be a process unto itself that always inhibited the recognition of contradictions, inconsistencies, and consistencies within one’s own reasoning. Yet even strong emotions do not necessarily inhibit the ability to use logic for those that know how to use it.

Personally I have known many individuals who could come up with extremely tight logical reasoning while experiencing an extreme emotional state. In these cases it was their premises and not their reasoning that ended up being off. Consider for example the logical implications of the premise that the entire world is “out to get you.”

The flaw in the Vulcan worldview is not however the depiction of emotion as a set of states that can inhibit one’s logic (as this is not inaccurate), but rather the presentation of logic (an epistemological system) as their psychological core. Logic simply cannot be one’s psyche. Strangely enough (or perhaps its not strange at all) there is a strong correlation between the logic/emotion dichotomy of Vulcan, and the objective/subjective dichotomy of objectivism.

While objectivism does not discount the value of emotions as a source of information, and as a meaningful part of human experience, it does define subjective to mean, in application, acting on emotion-inspired whims. Thus most emotion-inspired action would lack the necessary consideration of context to be objective. The necessary implication of this is that emotion can hinder objective reasoning.

[Timo]

Prometheuspan, please don't do that. You can see yourself that many of the "hits" are completely off the mark and have nothing to do with Vulcan psychology. And posting ten links does not contribute anything to the discussion that posting the suggestion "google for 'Vulcan psychology', please" would not already.

Timo Saloniemi

[Timo]

Heh. Good quotes this time around. Diane Duane's novels also feature a few insights into what she calls the "reality-truth" or "c'thia" in the native tongue.

Is the latter part, after the link, your original text?

Timo Saloniemi