Logic dictates...

Article published in Le Spectateur, n° 34, April 1912, p. 148-151

The sports editor of Excelsior wrote, on the eve of the Lewis-Carpentier boxing match:
"Carpentier was born a boxer and has only improved since his beginnings: he has just had a magnificent season, winning the French welterweight championship against Eustache, the European championship against Young Josephs.
We must not forget that Lewis has fought nearly 150 fights since 1904, that he has not been beaten ten times and that he has never been knocked out. He is a ring athlete, a man of great value, and when we study his record, we cannot imagine that he could be beaten by Carpentier. And yet the little Frenchman is so prodigious that we can expect anything from him.”
And he concludes:
"Opinions are clearly in favor of the American. Logic dictates it that way. And yet, at the risk of appearing too optimistic, Georges Carpentier's victory would not surprise me in the least."
Which could be translated: “Logic dictates that Lewis will be the winner: but I am inclined to believe that it will be Carpentier”.

It is appropriate to admire here the courage of a man opposing logical science, although renowned for its rigor: courage which was also rewarded, since Carpentier had the upper hand. And we could also notice that the author of the article still spoke according to a logic, perhaps different from some ideal logic, but which was no less a logic: one concluded from a series of victories to a new victory; the other from a gradation of success to a new success more “prodigious” than the previous ones. Likewise, it is only presenting a new story, a moral sequel, to say: “I want man to forget all moral laws and obey only instincts”. So again, in wanting to "bring together all the honest people who revolt against too many leagues", we find ourselves led to found a new league.
The argument here benefits from the admiration and respect which attaches to the man strong enough to neglect the established rule. He conceals that this man benefits, at the same time, from this ancient rule, in that it is most profound and most conformable to our nature; an "immoral" theory, that is to say "contrary to a specific morality", can only impose itself on us to the extent that we feel the need for a theoretical and general guide to our actions, a role that traditional morality first fulfills.
Can we say, however, that the sentence cited above is an argument? It is, at least, an argument that has become unconscious and a simple fact of language. Whether we want to specify the meaning of "logic" in expressions such as: "logic orders... logic commands...", we will notice that a second sentence usually follows and carries a restriction on the meaning of the first: "logic wants... and yet...". An ousted candidate said: "Logic wanted me to be appointed to this place, and yet my opponent got it." Sometimes the restriction is somehow implied: "Logic dictates that I be nominated. (So if I am not nominated - which is very possible - I will be entitled to complain)". She is rarely absent.

We hardly understand, either, this sentence: "What you say is perfectly logical..." without a commonplace which immediately restricts its scope: "...but it is only logical... but that does not prevent you from being completely wrong... but in life there is not only logic". That is to say that, however, keeping to the word "logic" the meaning of "rigorous (and exact) reasoning", the mind finds itself invincibly inclined to attach to it the idea of an incomplete and false reasoning.
We can say of such a word that it has a restrictive association meaning. Thus the words: seem, seem, appearance, are hardly understood without the restriction: but in reality, but deep down. This commonplace: “money doesn’t buy happiness” usually evokes: “but it contributes to it”.
The association, moreover, can be so close that there are cases where logic simply has this meaning: inaccurate opinion (because based on too small a number of observations, or on a poorly interpreted observation). It is thus said that children and madmen are much more logical in mind than sane people. An amusing newspaper cartoon shows a tourist speaking to a miller: "Weren't there two mills here once? — Yes, but one was removed because there wasn't enough wind for two." (Pages Folles, May 2, 1911). The caption is titled: Logic. And I am willing that logic still implies here the idea of a reasoning which seems rigorous and precise, but the result, the brutal meaning obtained is nevertheless: absurd reasoning. I heard in Paris, in a political meeting, this: “it’s logical, that says it all!”

Of such a profound transformation in the sense of the word "logic", we would only like to insinuate here that it is due, in part, to the play of the argument indicated above.

Jean Paulhan