Better circular logic

By Fred Shivvin

Mike's series about the adjective Equal made me think about circular logic. Mike referred to the argument used by those who set out to oppress others that they are somehow ‘better’ than them, and this justifies both their oppressive actions and their continued status as oppressors.

 

Circular logic (or circular reasoning) is used by people in ‘arguments’ about something they already believe or want to justify. 

The argument starts with something (the premise) that the person assumes is true: in this case 'I am better than you'. It assumes you already agree with the premise and then no real information is provided to support that premise.

Some circular logic can even sound convincing, but it only convinces people who already agree with the assumed premise. For the rest of us who don’t accept the premise to start with, the argument gives us no reason to change our thinking. I don't happen to agree with people who assume they are better than me!

It's not logic at all. It’s a self-reinforcing circle of belief. (This is why circular 'logic' features so often in 'arguments' about religion) 

But they are extremely common. Spotting a circular argument gives me a sense of accomplishment. They are also sometimes quite alarming. 

One type of circular logic merely restates the assumed premise in slightly different words. It looks like this:

• I know A (premise) because of B (the premise restated in different words).

• The president was a great communicator because he talked effectively to the people: ‘great communicator’ is restated as ‘talked effectively’.
• Athletic people are better at track and field because they are very fit and muscular: ‘athletic’ is restated as ‘fit and muscular’.

Another type of circular logic assumes the premise is true or agreed with, and then uses it in reverse to explain it. It looks like this:

• A (premise) is because of B (reason: the premise in reverse).

• Anyone who kills someone is mentally ill (premise without evidence) because only a mentally ill person could kill someone (premise in reverse).
• I am old enough to have a later curfew (premise without agreement), so I should be allowed to stay out after 10 pm.
• It is okay to destroy property when you are angry (premise without agreement) because angry people destroy things.

Keep your eyes open and you will see circular logic everywhere. 

So, what would Mike’s colonial oppressors’ circular logic look like? 

This sort of circle? 'We are better than you because we are 'on top' because we are better than you because we are 'on top' because we are better than you because we are 'on top' because....'

In fact, it is even more tortured and convoluted circular logic. 

It assumes the starting premise of being 'better' is true, and then provides a reason that is actually the premise in reverse (but restated with different words), that then becomes the premise (with a slightly different meaning for the same word), which is justified with a reason that looks like the premise in reverse (but has a different meaning again). 

That sentence hurts my head.

It is still a circle of words, but maybe more like a double circle, which looks like this: 

• We are 'on top' (dominion over all) because we are better (the most advanced) than 'them', and we are better (superior) than 'them' because we are 'on top' (the most ruthless and aggressive). 

In this diagram, I’ve added text to show the way the words ‘better’ and 'on top' shift meaning and are used as part of the restating, to complete the circle of justification. 

As Mike concluded in the Equal series, only the monarchs, dictators and European colonialists who were seeking to dominate others accepted this false 'logic'. They not only accepted it; they integrated it their world view. It is a circle of belief.

Most of those who were dominated saw the circular, self-justifying argument for what it was. They did not accept the original premise.

It is the circular logic of oppressors and abusers everywhere - nations and individuals. It is also the false argument of the white supremacist movement.

It might be funny to think about how bad the logic is, if it weren’t so scary.