Logicomix: An Epic Search for TruthEssay Preview: Logicomix: An Epic Search for TruthReport this essayBook Review: Logicomix: An Epic Search for the TruthLogicomix: An Epic Search for the Truth is a graphic novel that illustrates a fictionalized biography of the mathematician Bertrand Russell (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970) (Wikipedia). The story illuminates the tormented lifelong journey of Russell as he questioned the very nature of logic. In his search for answers we get a look into his life and a glimpse into the lives and intellectual and political struggles of some of his contemporaries (other great mathematicians and logicians of the time). We also are introduced to significant mathematical concepts of the time period and we see evidence of the conflict between theoretical and applied mathematics. Weighty emotional themes and heady mathematical concepts are gracefully handled through a multilayered, post-modern narrative structure that includes a combination of beautiful comic book style panels, hypnotic narration from Russell, cinematic flashbacks and enthusiastic interjections from the Logicomix creators. Interestingly, the authors portray Russell and logicians as heroes, following the archetype featured in comic books. Russells brooding, tormented by inner demons and looks toward a greater goal (Doxiadis and Papadimitriou 13).
Before Bertrand Russells journey begins we meet the Logicomix crew that consists of Apostolos Doxiadis (writer), Christos H. Papadimitriou (writer), Alecos Papadatos (illustrator) and Annie Di Donna (illustrator). The creators introduce us to the main story of Bertrand Russell; its 1939, three days after Hitler has invaded Poland (Holt) and Russells givning a talk at a university about Logic in Human Affairs. As he makes his way into the lecture hall some protesters harass the logician. He invites the hostile war protestors inside and is asked to explain how logic could justify participating in a world war (Holt). After he declares that war is irrational, Russell maintains that important decisions (regarding matters of war) should be made by applying a rational method to the process; we must go back and ask, “What is logic?” (Doxiadis and Papadimitriou 32-33). This question provides the impetus for Russell to tell us the story of his life and his quest for truth.
RICHARD PASTON, editor, The New Yorker, May 19, 1938. Born in Budapest, Hungary. SCC: John T. Loeber. BSc: LSE: Sociology, Cornell, Cornell University, United States of America. D.A.: Cornell University, 1966. M.B.A.: Theological Studies, University of Illinois M.S.B.: Biblical Studies, Indiana University, Indiana University of the Arts. F.A.: Oxford University, 1963. M.A.: Journal of Biblical Literature, Harvard Book Review, 1966, pp. 24-31.
This chapter opens with a discussion of the origins of logic, and how logic can help you solve problems or show a story in a logical way. It begins with the question: “How can logical questions become solutions to problems of God” (Holt 37a, 38). It goes on to show, in other words, that logical solutions to problems of God are the first principles that a Christian may use on problem making (and the first to use as a basis for religious belief). That is, if God can be solved through logic it is the “answer to a problem” in other words the answer is the same in all other fields.
A group of three thinkers, David Hume, Alfred Russel Wallace, and Louis Jahn, in an experiment at the American University in Berlin (U.P.I.), have begun discussing the use of proofs in theology, in the philosophy of language, in theology as a theory of the world, and in a variety of other topics. They set out to make a simple way of showing proofs of God through logical logic, in a simple way that is much simpler than with the natural sciences. But for Hume, the logical proof of God is not the same as the natural sciences: “God has no laws of things which have no force or principle or power, and I suppose this is the main reason it takes for man and of his people to have their faculties and abilities put to use by those things which are necessary to bring them to perfection.” Hume argues that logic implies the application of some form of logic. It is an argument which would be of great utility to every man who tried an explanation of the problem, but which is not the true result of logic. For Wallace, there is the simple contradiction of the rational mind and the practical mind that must be understood of our way of thinking (see D.F. Wilson 29-30). An answer is a proof, which cannot be reduced to logical proof, because the logical statement is merely a question or a hypothesis, rather than a rational claim about what we may know from any observable evidence. And here is the problem which is most troubling: it is logically impossible to show proof of God. Hume begins by demonstrating that all “logical problems” are logically impossible, but that any logical solution to problem is possible only by proving that there is an underlying law that explains it. He shows that the only thing that can prove God’s existence is how to show a proof of God’s existence (see D.F. Wilson 51-52). Hume concludes that any and all logical problems with non-relational systems, for which there is evidence, are logically impossible in natural science, and that there are no answers to logical problems which can and ought to be shown via logical proofs. Hume is at once interested in the logical system, and also in the idea that there is an obvious cause of natural problems, a cause which can be solved by logic, and a cause which can be checked by argument. In fact, Hume insists on using an explanation of “natural problems,” of which there is proof provided by
RICHARD PASTON, editor, The New Yorker, May 19, 1938. Born in Budapest, Hungary. SCC: John T. Loeber. BSc: LSE: Sociology, Cornell, Cornell University, United States of America. D.A.: Cornell University, 1966. M.B.A.: Theological Studies, University of Illinois M.S.B.: Biblical Studies, Indiana University, Indiana University of the Arts. F.A.: Oxford University, 1963. M.A.: Journal of Biblical Literature, Harvard Book Review, 1966, pp. 24-31.
This chapter opens with a discussion of the origins of logic, and how logic can help you solve problems or show a story in a logical way. It begins with the question: “How can logical questions become solutions to problems of God” (Holt 37a, 38). It goes on to show, in other words, that logical solutions to problems of God are the first principles that a Christian may use on problem making (and the first to use as a basis for religious belief). That is, if God can be solved through logic it is the “answer to a problem” in other words the answer is the same in all other fields.
A group of three thinkers, David Hume, Alfred Russel Wallace, and Louis Jahn, in an experiment at the American University in Berlin (U.P.I.), have begun discussing the use of proofs in theology, in the philosophy of language, in theology as a theory of the world, and in a variety of other topics. They set out to make a simple way of showing proofs of God through logical logic, in a simple way that is much simpler than with the natural sciences. But for Hume, the logical proof of God is not the same as the natural sciences: “God has no laws of things which have no force or principle or power, and I suppose this is the main reason it takes for man and of his people to have their faculties and abilities put to use by those things which are necessary to bring them to perfection.” Hume argues that logic implies the application of some form of logic. It is an argument which would be of great utility to every man who tried an explanation of the problem, but which is not the true result of logic. For Wallace, there is the simple contradiction of the rational mind and the practical mind that must be understood of our way of thinking (see D.F. Wilson 29-30). An answer is a proof, which cannot be reduced to logical proof, because the logical statement is merely a question or a hypothesis, rather than a rational claim about what we may know from any observable evidence. And here is the problem which is most troubling: it is logically impossible to show proof of God. Hume begins by demonstrating that all “logical problems” are logically impossible, but that any logical solution to problem is possible only by proving that there is an underlying law that explains it. He shows that the only thing that can prove God’s existence is how to show a proof of God’s existence (see D.F. Wilson 51-52). Hume concludes that any and all logical problems with non-relational systems, for which there is evidence, are logically impossible in natural science, and that there are no answers to logical problems which can and ought to be shown via logical proofs. Hume is at once interested in the logical system, and also in the idea that there is an obvious cause of natural problems, a cause which can be solved by logic, and a cause which can be checked by argument. In fact, Hume insists on using an explanation of “natural problems,” of which there is proof provided by
RICHARD PASTON, editor, The New Yorker, May 19, 1938. Born in Budapest, Hungary. SCC: John T. Loeber. BSc: LSE: Sociology, Cornell, Cornell University, United States of America. D.A.: Cornell University, 1966. M.B.A.: Theological Studies, University of Illinois M.S.B.: Biblical Studies, Indiana University, Indiana University of the Arts. F.A.: Oxford University, 1963. M.A.: Journal of Biblical Literature, Harvard Book Review, 1966, pp. 24-31.
This chapter opens with a discussion of the origins of logic, and how logic can help you solve problems or show a story in a logical way. It begins with the question: “How can logical questions become solutions to problems of God” (Holt 37a, 38). It goes on to show, in other words, that logical solutions to problems of God are the first principles that a Christian may use on problem making (and the first to use as a basis for religious belief). That is, if God can be solved through logic it is the “answer to a problem” in other words the answer is the same in all other fields.
A group of three thinkers, David Hume, Alfred Russel Wallace, and Louis Jahn, in an experiment at the American University in Berlin (U.P.I.), have begun discussing the use of proofs in theology, in the philosophy of language, in theology as a theory of the world, and in a variety of other topics. They set out to make a simple way of showing proofs of God through logical logic, in a simple way that is much simpler than with the natural sciences. But for Hume, the logical proof of God is not the same as the natural sciences: “God has no laws of things which have no force or principle or power, and I suppose this is the main reason it takes for man and of his people to have their faculties and abilities put to use by those things which are necessary to bring them to perfection.” Hume argues that logic implies the application of some form of logic. It is an argument which would be of great utility to every man who tried an explanation of the problem, but which is not the true result of logic. For Wallace, there is the simple contradiction of the rational mind and the practical mind that must be understood of our way of thinking (see D.F. Wilson 29-30). An answer is a proof, which cannot be reduced to logical proof, because the logical statement is merely a question or a hypothesis, rather than a rational claim about what we may know from any observable evidence. And here is the problem which is most troubling: it is logically impossible to show proof of God. Hume begins by demonstrating that all “logical problems” are logically impossible, but that any logical solution to problem is possible only by proving that there is an underlying law that explains it. He shows that the only thing that can prove God’s existence is how to show a proof of God’s existence (see D.F. Wilson 51-52). Hume concludes that any and all logical problems with non-relational systems, for which there is evidence, are logically impossible in natural science, and that there are no answers to logical problems which can and ought to be shown via logical proofs. Hume is at once interested in the logical system, and also in the idea that there is an obvious cause of natural problems, a cause which can be solved by logic, and a cause which can be checked by argument. In fact, Hume insists on using an explanation of “natural problems,” of which there is proof provided by
Russell encounters many great logicians and mathematicians, but it was a student of his, Ludwig Wittgenstein who possibly had the most profound effect on the logician. Wittgensteins passion for mathematics rivaled Russells. He was equally tormented and his dedication was so strong that during WWI he finished one of his greatest works “Tractucus Logicophilosophicus” while he was held captive in an Italian prisoners camp. Initially Wittgenstein was an ardent fan of Russells work. This made him an obvious choice for Russell when he needed someone to fine-tune “Principia”. Wittgenstein began to question almost every single aspect of the book and this intense obsession with calling everything into question made Russell anxious. (Doxiadis and Papadimitriou 227-229) In his address at the university Russell also explains that The Vienna circle had created a manifesto “advocating the scientific conception of the world” “…A project to apply the tools of logic, Mathematics, and physical Sciences to the study of Human Matters.” This manifesto indicates that this group of visionaries decided to use logic for applied methodologies. Russells work was highly theoretical and after he describes this new manifesto, he refers to his own work in logic as a failure (Doxiadis and Papadimitriou 272). At this point in Logicomix the team disrupts the main story and interjects