Written by Abdullah Mirza based on a conversation with LIFE founder, Shaykh Mustafa Styer.
What is logic? There are countless doors, hallways, and labyrinths within the vast fortress of logic. Technically, we can call logic the “formal aspect of reasoning,” in other words, if we think about the world using reason, then logic gives us a way of thinking with rules and structure. Hence, logic is the science of clear and sound reasoning.
As a science, logic is distinct. Unlike other sciences which study topics in the world, such as society, mathematics, or the natural world, logic deals with the secondary intelligibles which are used in reasoning. In other words, logic primarily addresses the how of thinking, rather than the what. However, within the Islamic tradition there is a debate about whether logic has a specific topic which it treats, like the other sciences, or whether logic is merely an instrument. Nevertheless, logic was traditionally the prerequisite to all the other sciences, a foundation of all learning.
In other words, logic primarily addresses the “how” of thinking, rather than the “what.”
Logic is the science of the sciences. It studies how the sciences come about, and how the concepts in our minds can tell us about things in the real world. Logic considers three “movements” of the mind: notions of thought universal to the human experience. Hence Aristotle—who codified the system of logic in Ancient Greece that has influenced all philosophy ever since—is referred to in classical manuals of Islamic law as not the inventor of the science of logic, but as its discoverer. In other words, Aristotle did not invent logic, but he mapped out all of the valid forms of reasoning that every human mind already engages in to one level or another.
Knowing the rules of these movements of the mind allows one to sense them within oneself and externalize them. Without this recognition, we cannot be able to properly judge a topic we are thinking about, because we will not be able to identify the modes of thinking that we are using to arrive at our conclusions. Thus, knowing the rules of thinking is like knowing the rules of mathematics. Could you solve a complicated mathematical problem without knowing the rules of math? The same applies to thinking.
Once we clarify the real meaning of our words, once we put them into chains of reasoning, we become capable of holding the elements of our thinking in front of ourselves and giving them careful consideration. Here arises a distinction between imagination and thought: without being able to consider the chains of reason, we become susceptible to being moved by images that stimulate our imagination, rather than being able to realize and identify what is actually going on. If we rely on imagination alone, we are prone to becoming confused and thinking improperly.
If we grasp hold of our imagination by the instrument of logic and the rules of the movements of thought, we can distinguish between our imagination and our thoughts. Otherwise, we cannot, and the soul is subject to all the images which come into us. For most people, it is far easier to live solely by the imagination, because reasoning is difficult and takes work.
It is very easy to have regrets about the past, or worry about the future, or make judgements based on emotions and feelings, but it takes training to think properly. The very first part of a logic manual actually helps us to distinguish between the images in our minds. What do we mean when we say “human,” or “tree,” or “bicycle?” What is the essence of each of these things, what is inherent to each that distinguishes it from everything else? What properties do all human beings share? What do all bicycles have in common?
As we begin to classify things, we begin to make sense of the world, but before we make abstractions, we do not have the power to move beyond the level of our imagination.
As soon as we start to ask these questions, we convert the images in our souls into abstract and universal ideas. For instance, we can say a human being is an animal (an abstract category), but what kind of animal is it? As we begin to classify things, we begin to make sense of the world, but before we make abstractions, we do not have the power to move beyond the level of our imagination. This tells us something about how we should learn: the order of learning should mirror the order of thinking, and the order of thinking should mirror an order of being, or existence itself.
This is an insight which has been lost in most of our modern educational institutions, which is why they do not deserve to be called “educational,” but rather “instructional.” Partly, this shift has to do with a break in the western tradition from traditional natural science to what is called the “novum organum,” or “new instrument (of science)” with a focus on induction and observation. There is nothing wrong with induction by itself, except that it cannot produce any sort of “universal” knowledge.
From an early stage in the development of modern science, scientists stopped trying to take the elements they were studying and tie them back to reality. Throughout Islamic history—with some exceptions—Muslim scientists have used a “realist” approach to knowledge. That means that whether we use induction or deduction, we want to say that the pattern that we have recognized in nature is an attribute of something in the world, we are trying to get to what things are rather than simply studying the superficial phenomena on a material level. We want to try and ask why things have the attributes they have.
Just as we cannot consider the world independently of what is, we cannot think of thinking without considering the one who thinks. Thus, traditional logic is also rooted in traditional psychology, and learning logic is a very fair way towards learning psychology. But similarly rooted in psychology is ethics—as articulated in Iḥiyāʾ ʿulūm ad-dīn or The Revival of the Religious Sciences by Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazali. Hence, each of these sciences help us master other related sciences, which are all built on a system of learning that tell us about the world as it is, and ultimately about its creator.
A secondary intelligible is that which does not correspond to anything (in the extra mental world). Secondary intelligibles are abstract concepts like love, freedom, etc. We have never seen them yet we have a 'perception of them in our mind' and that perception is called a secondary intelligible (Source: Kitab al-Ta'rifat by al-Sayyid al-Sharif al-Jurjani)