http://sfc.strategyplanet.gamespy.com/vulcanyards/vulcan_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/2005/01/logic-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.