"Logic extremists"

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

I do think the term "logic extremist" sounds rather stupid. Extremism is the antithesis of logic and rationality.

Maybe "logic fundamentalist" or "fundamentalist logician" would make more sense. I think it would have sounded better to use some Vulcan word in the term, such as "T'lahranthi extremist." (I just made that up).

Kor

In non-canon, the term is "Cthia/C'Thia".

And it complicates the discussion, because the term does not translate to logic, but something like "truth-reality". Now anyone familiar with philosophy will see that this has huge implications.

For logic itself is just a tool, as people have said, but Truth-Reality carries a lot of extra meaning - it means that when a Vulcan extols logic, what they are really saying is "realism", "reality", "nature", "naturalism", "truth" - by it's very definition, you could argue being an extremist is the opposite of a naturalistic world-view, since it is founded on speculative 'idealism', rather than the here-and-now. Basically an extremist never adapts their beliefs to fit the facts of the day, or allows for natural change and growth - but a realist by definition is committed to altering their ideals to fit down-to-earth reality.

Also, placing truth as a high-most value, is very interesting, as some people would argue that a society utterly committed to honest self-examination is a healthy democracy, and many of the problems associated with extremism cannot occur in such an environment. Your Nixons, Trumps and My Lai Massacres, and other moral failings, may occur where people neglect the first duty of a citizen - truth. Where it becomes more pressing to rally around your comrades in the army than be honest about having shot 350 civilians. This compounds resentment and at worst, if a society accepts the hypocrisy, it may crumble.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

^^^
They are slowly backing away from Star Trek's radically progressive ethics, with each adaptation, aren't they?

Where once Earth was basically crime free by the 24th century, with the implication being that centuries of social programmes had eliminated the roots of violence and poverty almost entirely.... Where Kirk talked of crime as being merely a social disease to be treated and no longer resented or punished for the gratification of the victim... Where once Vulcan was held to be a society bred to pacifism, which had abandoned passion and prejudice through reason after realising it would destroy them... Where once the ethical position, was, quite rightly, that crime/violence can and should be eliminated, and is not 'inevitable'...

...slowly we now come toward today's public perception of crime/violence being inalienable from society.

This is all despite some pretty substantial evidence from the scientific community that this is not in fact the case, and the roots of violence are slowly dying out, with less and less casualties in war and crime with every passing year. Where Star Trek may have been at it's most prophetic when it believed wholesale in the elimination of social problems by the 24th century, each new adaptation seems, to me at least, to think of that view as being an archaic relic, despite the fact that it seems to be genuinely attested to by scholarship, and another example of foresight.

Vulcans, held to have undergone a reasoned rejection of prejudice, now have 'extremist' suicide bombers.

With each new adaptation, it seems we go further and further toward exceptional examples of prejudiced admirals and corrupt captains, and we have less and less of the Trek's prophetic belief in the ultimate triumph of naturalism - it seems more and more of the 21st century's present cynicism determines what is thought of as realistic - the war on terror, the race and crime problems in the United States, etc.

I think this is an excellent point - it's not that art isn't a reflection of the times as fireproof78 said - I agree with that - its more that TOS was already written in a time of great violence and possible nuclear war itself, but was prescient enough to know that all real metrics pointed to the elimination of violence, whenever reason triumphed - all periods of great massacre were idealistic, not naturalistic - the Nazis may have been good at using engineering, but Nazism was basically a dark age religion with irrational dogmas, it believed things that were already pseudoscience at the time - accepted ridiculous conspiracy theories about other ethnic groups - whiggish liberalism and natural realism always produced calmer societies, with steady progress, however flawed - and grand social experiments based on idealism and 'perfecting humanity' like the French Revolution, Russian Revolution and fascist regimes, led to your red terrors, gulags and holocausts.

So Star Trek prophetically predicted that a society could overcome all the social causes of violence and crime over time, through steady expansion of rights and literacy, science and reason, and the rejection of 'ideological perfection of society'. As far as I know, this is still the scholarly consensus. But you sometimes come across arguments saying that TOS and TNG were hopelessly idealistic, or are dated by their beliefs.

So, if each new adaptation of Star Trek feels that it has to retreat from this standpoint of 'big history', seeing the decline of social problems and violence, and instead make it's main 'good guy' societies, Earth and Vulcan, ever more violent, then what does this tell us? That Roddenberry was a idiot as some people would like to believe, or that he was actually quite prescient, and Star Trek loses an aspect of it's identity the more it pushes toward other drama? First, 22nd century Vulcans are openly militarist, now 23rd century Vulcans have suicide bombers, so where next, maybe we can have 24th century Vulcan Westboro Baptists with 'God hates Breen' signs, and dismiss this as just a minority, whilst ignoring that Star Trek's positive example of a society looks more and more fundamentally diseased? Perhaps exploring human problems with non-Federation societies was correct.

 

[F. King Daniel]

But that’s in the wrong century. It’s in the 22nd century. Apparently Vulcans still have terrorists in the 23rd century.

And 22nd. And 24th.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

It’s in the 22nd century.

And 22nd.

 

[Kor]

By the way, have we mentioned the 22nd century?

Kor

 

[Refuge]

I don't understand the concept of the term 'logic extremists'. If logic itself is reasoning, consistent valid premises/principles arriving at a conclusion.. then it ends there. The performance of logic isn't a little bit subtle or a little bit extreme, it just .. is.

The idea that a group has formed to keep the purity of logic free from human corruption reminds me of something else. Just being in such a group is a twisted ideology.. not overly.. logical.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But that’s in the wrong century. It’s in the 22nd century. Apparently Vulcans still have terrorists in the 23rd century.

Still in the 23rd, depending on how you interpret Mudd's actions on Discovery. And definitely in the 24th, considering the Maquis.

Terrorism is a tactic of the weak and/or desperate. Humans do not resort to terrorism when they don't have to. Vulcans probably don't either, on the whole, but the logic extremists are both more desperate and less able t push their agenda.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

No ideology/philosophy/paradigm of thought is immune to being corrupted/perverted/diverted/hijacked/infiltrated by extremism and radicalism. Not Mohammad's, not Christ's, not Darwin's, not Kahless', and not Surak's.

Besides, no Vulcan is truly purely logical. That notion is always either the ignorant stereotype of outsiders or their delusional idealization of themselves in denial of their ever-conflicted nature.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't understand the concept of the term 'logic extremists'. If logic itself is reasoning, consistent valid premises/principles arriving at a conclusion.. then it ends there. The performance of logic isn't a little bit subtle or a little bit extreme, it just .. is.

Yes, but remember that the Vulcan adherence to logic is largely self-regulating and shame-based. There's no central committee or review board that looks at your actions and determines whether or not you're being logical or emotional. So quite a few Vulcans -- Sarek in particular -- will do things that are not entirely logical and justify it with a convincing (though partially bullshit) logical justification. Vulcan prejudice against Spock has this feature: there is no LOGICAL reason to bully Spock or try to trigger an emotional response, but they can definitely concoct one to cover the fact that their behavior is purely emotion-based. And even the minister of the Science Academy using it as a dig against spock -- "Why did you come here today? Is it to satisfy your emotional need to rebel?" -- is a completely illogical thing to say and serves no purpose except to ostracize and embarass Spock.

A logical extremist is one who rejects ALL emotional considerations and probably calls for more active prosecution of those whose actions cannot be justified logically. In practice, they're probably something like the Grammaton Clerics from "Equilibrium", ruthlessly and dispassionately persecuting Vulcans whose actions they view as giving over to emotionalism and illogic. They probably think that the aggregate of acceptance of emotional concerns would be a slippery slope back to barbarity and self-destruction and that high-level officials who embrace emotionalism should be made examples of (Sarek, being the most obvious).

 

[Refuge]

Yes, but remember that the Vulcan adherence to logic is largely self-regulating and shame-based. There's no central committee or review board that looks at your actions and determines whether or not you're being logical or emotional. So quite a few Vulcans -- Sarek in particular -- will do things that are not entirely logical and justify it with a convincing (though partially bullshit) logical justification. Vulcan prejudice against Spock has this feature: there is no LOGICAL reason to bully Spock or try to trigger an emotional response, but they can definitely concoct one to cover the fact that their behavior is purely emotion-based. And even the minister of the Science Academy using it as a dig against spock -- "Why did you come here today? Is it to satisfy your emotional need to rebel?" -- is a completely illogical thing to say and serves no purpose except to ostracize and embarass Spock.

A logical extremist is one who rejects ALL emotional considerations and probably calls for more active prosecution of those whose actions cannot be justified logically. In practice, they're probably something like the Grammaton Clerics from "Equilibrium", ruthlessly and dispassionately persecuting Vulcans whose actions they view as giving over to emotionalism and illogic. They probably think that the aggregate of acceptance of emotional concerns would be a slippery slope back to barbarity and self-destruction and that high-level officials who embrace emotionalism should be made examples of (Sarek, being the most obvious).

Wrong thread for me to muse this.. but I've wondered how the Borg fit into the disciplines? Are they logical or do we assume logic when emotion is removed? The Borg operate by expanding a collective, these logic extremists seem to want to remove impure influences.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I think this is an excellent point - it's not that art isn't a reflection of the times as fireproof78 said - I agree with that - its more that TOS was already written in a time of great violence and possible nuclear war itself, but was prescient enough to know that all real metrics pointed to the elimination of violence, whenever reason triumphed - all periods of great massacre were idealistic, not naturalistic - the Nazis may have been good at using engineering, but Nazism was basically a dark age religion with irrational dogmas, it believed things that were already pseudoscience at the time - accepted ridiculous conspiracy theories about other ethnic groups - whiggish liberalism and natural realism always produced calmer societies, with steady progress, however flawed - and grand social experiments based on idealism and 'perfecting humanity' like the French Revolution, Russian Revolution and fascist regimes, led to your red terrors, gulags and holocausts.

So Star Trek prophetically predicted that a society could overcome all the social causes of violence and crime over time, through steady expansion of rights and literacy, science and reason, and the rejection of 'ideological perfection of society'. As far as I know, this is still the scholarly consensus. But you sometimes come across arguments saying that TOS and TNG were hopelessly idealistic, or are dated by their beliefs.

So, if each new adaptation of Star Trek feels that it has to retreat from this standpoint of 'big history', seeing the decline of social problems and violence, and instead make it's main 'good guy' societies, Earth and Vulcan, ever more violent, then what does this tell us? That Roddenberry was a idiot as some people would like to believe, or that he was actually quite prescient, and Star Trek loses an aspect of it's identity the more it pushes toward other drama? First, 22nd century Vulcans are openly militarist, now 23rd century Vulcans have suicide bombers, so where next, maybe we can have 24th century Vulcan Westboro Baptists with 'God hates Breen' signs, and dismiss this as just a minority, whilst ignoring that Star Trek's positive example of a society looks more and more fundamentally diseased? Perhaps exploring human problems with non-Federation societies was correct.

First of all, you can't really sell "idealism" to a viewing audience, particularly in a drama. Drama implies internal and external conflict and the need to arrive at a solution. People watch dramas because their lives are full of conflict and the stories we tell and watch -- in fiction in particular -- give us a break from reality where those conflicts don't always get solved. They help us deal, emotionally and spiritually, with the strife in our own lives by looking at a world where things actually get better. But for that to work, we need to be able to SEE the world get better, not see a world where the problems have already been solved.

The whole point of this utopian vision isn't about the problems having been solved, it's about everyone WANTING to solve the problems in the first place. That is particularly relevant in today's world where it seems like there's a huge segment of the population that not only doesn't want to solve those problems but actually LIKES the fact that those problems exist and seek to exploit the hell out of them for their own personal gain. The appeal of Star Trek isn't that it shows us a better world, it shows us basically the same world we have now filled with better people. People who, really, we could all aspire to be, because if we WERE like those people, we could make our world more similar to theirs anyway.

So these social ills popping up in the Star Trek universe aren't the antithesis of the "positive vision" we're looking for. Terrorists try to blow up a peace negotiation in 2017, we just murder their families with drones strikes and then blame it on the Liberals. In Star Trek, though, they seek a solution that actually solves the udnerlying problem and see if they can make things better for everyone involved, not just whoever happens to be the most powerful.

We, the audience, are not looking forward to seeing a world without demons. We are looking forward to seeing the demons being conquered by someone not totally unlike us. A story with no problems isn't a story, it's just a complicated essay.

 

[Nyotarules]

Seems like being logical/unemotional would preclude becoming extremist, but what do I know?

IDIC my ass.

Love you neighbour as yourself said one human prophet and some of His followers said....only if my neighbour looks just like me! Imagine if such folks did something culturally influential like build empires....heaven help the rest of the world!

 

[Nyotarules]

Logic dictates that one must turn into a big red bomb and self-destruct.

He'll get 70 virgins in Sha Ka Ree

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Wrong thread for me to muse this.. but I've wondered how the Borg fit into the disciplines? Are they logical or do we assume logic when emotion is removed? The Borg operate by expanding a collective, these logic extremists seem to want to remove impure influences.

It depends on which version of the Borg you're talking about. The Post-FC version is just plain ridiculous and incomprehensible so I pretty much just ignore them.

But the TNG version of the Borg, it was pretty clear that they were a purely collectivist civilization, like communism on ultra-double steroids. Democratic control not just of the means of production, but of the means of reproduction, of navigation, of tactical situations, of logistics, of even your own emotions. In practical terms, the way it PROBABLY operates is that every member of the collective (individual ship, really) sees what's going on and contributes an idea. A lot of them will come up with the same ideas, alot will come up with different ones. They categorize those ideas, combining the very similar ones, and take a poll. The least popular one is eliminated, then they take another vote on the remainder, again eliminating the least popular solution until, finally, there is only one left. Since they're all connected electronically with their minds accelerated by machine intelligence, they can probably go through ten or fifteen iterations of this every second until they decide what to do. What would take a normal crew maybe a minute or two to figure out, the Borg can do almost instantly.

It isn't a matter of logic or discipline, it's just a matter of SPEED. They can all contribute quickly, and they can make decisions quickly. They dispose of their dead quickly, they process (or suppress) emotions quickly, they deal with dissent quickly, they deal with problems quickly. It's a highly efficient and powerful way to run a society... it's also soulless, and utterly uncompromising to everyone outside of the collective.

As for the Vulcans: I don't think the Logic Extremists are really into collectivism like that. They're clearly out for enriching the Vulcan species in and of itself and fuck everyone else. To them, this is logical, "extremely" so, and emotional considerations are to be shunned and rejected because emotion is how you get nuclear war and self destruction.

 

[Nyotarules]

I'm definitely intrigued by them. And reminded of all the Vulcan drama from Enterprise.

ENT was only 100 years ago, for a race that can live way past 200, that length of time is not long

 

[Tesophius]

I don't have a problem with logic extremists, it seems consistent with Vulcan racism that we've seen before over the course of the four pre-TOS seasons

 

[Ronald Held]

Some are equating logical extremism with Kolinahr?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Kohlinar is the extreme of emotional suppression not logic.

 

[Nyotarules]

Still in the 23rd, depending on how you interpret Mudd's actions on Discovery. And definitely in the 24th, considering the Maquis.

Terrorism is a tactic of the weak and/or desperate. Humans do not resort to terrorism when they don't have to. Vulcans probably don't either, on the whole, but the logic extremists are both more desperate and less able t push their agenda.

A terrorist is a freedom fighter who lost his/her war/cause ....
A hero is a terrorist who won his war/cause....

 

[Ronald Held]

Kohlinar is the extreme of emotional suppression not logic.

Yes via techniques using logic.