LOGIC IS ALWAYS VALID, BECAUSE IT IS FROM ONE’S CULTURE AND BELIEF, BUT REACHING A CONCLUSION FROM ONE’S LOGIC IS NOT.
...t logic means, there is no such “boundary’ that can validate that (if one can even call it logic). However, because logic can also be defined as a tool to reason and reach a conclusion, in a way, Hitler can say that Aryans will rise as his conclusion. Now, the next question is, how did the idea of Aryan superiority become a logic to Hitler? Hypothetically speaking, if Hitler was raised in a country where the people in the society were very prestigious and proud of themselves for generations, Hitler would have been raised to be very proud of himself and his race. Also, if his religion said that his people will live forever in peace and prosper, he will think that it’s obvious and definite that he will live that way. These assumptions became Hitler’s personal belief, due to the culture. As a result, Hitler used this to reason and made it as his logic. Ultimately, his logic became a tool, composed of his beliefs. If conclusions are reached by logical thinking, then is it not logical that his conclusion of killing millions of Jews is based on his logic? In addition, friends, jobs, family, hobbies and education are all a part of culture, which can potentially attribute to anyone’s logic. Therefore, culture is a very controlling weapon to manipulate logic, which finally determines the conclusions we reach. Referring to the syllogism I presented before, that is acceptable because the “boundaries” are valid. However, hypothetically speaking, if I suggested, “All terrorists in the 9/11 incident were all Eskimos. My neighbour is an Eskimo. Therefore he must have been a terrorist in the 9/11 incident.”4, that is valid in the sense of “boundaries”, but the assumption is not. That statement is valid in terms of logic, because it’s a way of thinking according to what I think, but it can not be right, because I would say this if I was prejudice against Eskimos. If I am prejudiced against Eskimos, it just proves that my conclusion cannot be right, because my final decision is based on my beliefs, not the truth. These kinds of assumptions usually come from cultural input like racism, which is ultimately a personal belief. From my personal experience, when I first came to Canada, I wasn’t compatible with my peers because my cultural background was so different. In my home country, tapping on someone’s shoulder is one of the ways to get attention. However, that is considered extremely irritating and rude in Canada. My logic was that, if everyone I have encountered before was not upset when I tapped them, and then the Canadians should not be any different. Again, my “boundary” was valid, but my conclusion was not, because Koreans are the same as Canadians in terms of people, but not in the terms of culture. From this, I realized that no matter how much my logic seem to make sense, the conclusion that I reach is usually not universal because culture and personal beliefs made my logic valid, but my conclusion invalid. Until everyone’s culture is the same, the logic will be the same. Therefore, the chance of reaching a similar conclusion is quite high, but because there are so many varieties of cultures, it can never happen. In addition to the examples, if I was peer-pressured to skateboard off of ...