Logic | Philosophy Tube

hi welcome to philosophytube i teach people philosophy i'm moving flats this month and my last few videos have been absurdly long so this time let's cut to the chase i've been teaching philosophy on youtube for over seven years now and whilst i've gotten pretty good at explaining specific topics there's one thing that i've struggled to teach and that's how do you actually do a philosophy so i thought it'd be a good idea to show you how to take apart an argument and figure out what it's saying if you can master this it's going to be so useful for you because before i studied any of it i'd hear people say things in real life and i'd be like i know that's a lot of rubbish but i can't express why and once you get the hang of it you'll be more articulate more precise you'll be able to write and speak better and those are all great ways to trick people into thinking that you have a personality so here's how it's going to go down first of all i'm going to give you a speech that contains an argument we are then going to go through that argument together and i will show you various useful concepts along the way so by the end you'll be able to tell how it all hangs together or doesn't hang together as the case may be the speech i've chosen is from this catalans war by sullust sullust was an ancient roman historian writing in about the 40s bc so we're in a very interesting transition period as the roman republic collapses and becomes the empire it's got big prequel trilogy star wars energy i chose it because you know moving from one way of life to a different one government collapse political disintegration it seemed appropriate this is a true story of a real guy a roman senator called catalin who tried to launch a coup he tried to overthrow the government in the 60s the 60s bc and his plan was to take advantage of an economic crisis to get the people on his side raise an army and then assassinate the top guy in rome there are no emperors yet we're pre-empire the top guy is called the consul they are elected and this one's name is cicero there are actually two consuls who share the powers but the target is cicero so catalan raises his army he gets the people on his side and then it all goes wrong because the guys he sends to kill cicero botch it they get caught the conspiracy is uncovered cicero survives cataline flees but now the senator on to him and there's this scene in the middle where they've uncovered the conspiracy and caught these five guys and now they've got to decide what are we gonna do with them and cicero gets up in the senate and he says real quick vibe check but he says it in latin obviously so weilock's name is reprehende vibrationis and the vibe in the room is kinda death kill them kill them now no trial no process like and now and this is a big deal because roman citizens are not supposed to be executed they're supposed to be exiled we don't just whack our own dudes and we sure as hell don't whack elected senators this is like if i don't know michael gove got caught planning to use the army to overthrow boris johnson and boris stood up in parliament was like okay lads plan is we are all to go around michael gove's gaffe this afternoon and strangle him to death like you're really crossing a line here pal this is the most powerful people in society just giving themselves permission to commit murder and all of a sudden who stands up but julius caesar very much the chancellor palpatine of this part of history only 37 years old hasn't turned to the dark side yet but he gets up and he says don't kill these dudes but he says it in latin so known occides these dudes and he delivers a very famous speech which i will give you now slightly modern [Applause] [Applause] whenever anyone deliberates questions of great importance they should empty themselves of hatred and friendship and anger and pity when these feelings get in the way it can be difficult for the mind to see the truth and nobody has ever served his passions and his best interests at the same time if we use our intellect it will prevail but if passion takes hold it dominates and the mind is useless i remember senators many occasions when kings and tribes under the influence of anger or pity made bad judgments but i prefer to remind you all of times when our ancestors resisting their passion acted justly and properly during the macedonian war which we fought against king perseus the great and glorious community of the rhodians which had grown thanks to the people of rome was disloyal and fought against us and after the war was over and the question of what to do with the rhodians was being deliberated our ancestors let them go unpunished lest somebody might say that it was the wealth of the rhodians rather than the resentment for the wrong they'd done us which pushed us to retaliation likewise too in all the punic wars although the carthaginians both in peacetime and when we were supposed to have a truce did many abominable things the romans never retaliated when they had the chance but instead asked what course of action befits our dignity you senators must likewise beware of letting the guilt of publius lentils and the rest sway you more than your own dignity of paying more attention to your anger than your reputations if a punishment can be found that fits their crime then i will change my mind but if the enormity of their guilt simply beggars belief then i advise that we limit ourselves to the punishments that the law has set down many of those [Applause] many of those who spoke before me expressed their pity for the commonwealth in neat and splendid phrases they dwelt upon the horrors of civil war the wretched fate of the conquered the rape of maidens and boys children snatched from the arms of their parents mothers subjected to the will of the victor's homes and temples pillaged in short arms and corpses everywhere gore and grief but by the gods what was the point of such speeches to incense us against the conspiracy oh naturally a man who has not been moved by the monstrous crime itself will be fired up when he hears speech about it no no no one here believes that the wrongs that have been done to us are unimportant some of us indeed resent them more than they should but but not all men senators have the same freedom of action if the lowly who live their lives in obscurity commit some offense through anger no one ever hears of it their fame is on the same level as their fortune but for those who wield great power who live their lives at the top their actions are known throughout all the world and so it is that in the highest positions there is the least freedom of action neither partiality nor hatred but least of all anger is appropriate what in others is called anger in a ruler is called arrogance and cruelty now for my own part senators i do not consider any tortures to be sufficient for the crimes of these men but most people remember only that which happens last and in the case of heinous men if their punishment is just a little bit too severe people will remember the punishment and not the crime now i have no doubt that um decimal solanus a brave man a gallant man was led to recommend summary execution out of patriotism and that when it comes to such an important matter he would neither play favorites nor hold grudges so well do i know the man's character and his honesty and yet his proposal seems to me not cruel for what could be too cruel in the case of such men but foreign to our country and its customs for surely destiny solanus it was either fear or or the severity of their crime which prompted you to recommend the ultimate penalty now it's foolish to speak about fear because uh thanks to the precautions of our distinguished counsel we have the criminals under guard but as far as the penalty is concerned i think death would be a relief for these men not a punishment it would remove all possibility of mortal ills all chances of joys and of sorrow oh but by the gods solanus why did you not say that before they are executed they should also be whipped was it because whipping them is against the law well it is but there are also other laws laws which say that a roman citizen should not be executed even when found guilty but should be given the opportunity of exile why respect the law in the lesser point when you've disregarded it in the greater or was it because whipping them and then executing them would simply be too cruel but again what could be too cruel in the case of such men but you may say who will complain of a sentence that is passed against traitors time is the answer the passing of years and fortune whose whims rule the world whatever happens to these men will be well deserved yes but you should consider senators how your actions will affect other criminals every bad precedent starts in good circumstances and when the control of this government is passed to other men who may be wicked or who may be incompetent your precedent is likewise transferred from those who well deserve it to those who do not the spartans the spartans he has a right to be heard the spartans when the spartans conquered the athenians they placed 30 men in charge of their government and to begin with they executed without trial only the most wicked and hated citizens and everyone rejoiced and said it was well done and afterwards they kept going they executed good men and bad men alike and terrorized the rest and athens was reduced to slavery and they paid a heavy price for their foolish rejoicing within our own lifetimes general sulla when he ordered the execution of damascipius and others who had grown rich and powerful at the expense of rome's people who among us did not commend that action everyone said these criminals they've ruined the country with their rebellion they deserve their fate but that was the beginning of a disaster because pretty soon whenever anyone desired another man's villa or even his goblet or his clothes he tried to have his name put on the execution list and before long those who had cheered the execution of damascipius were themselves being led away to slaughter and the massacre did not end until i became a dictator now for my own part i don't fear anything of the sort happening with our own marcus tullius in our time but in a big country like this one senators there's all sorts of people it is possible that at some other time when some other man is console and likewise in command of an army that someone might tell a lie and that someone might be believed and when that console with this precedent set before him draws his sword who's going to stand in his way our ancestors senators were never lacking in either wisdom or courage but they were not too proud to avoid working with foreigners provided they were honorable they took weapons from the sam knights they took their insignia from the etruscans in short whatever they found agreeable in either allies or enemies they put into practice at home with enthusiasm preferring to imitate the successful rather than envy them but in that same time following the example of the greeks they whipped their citizens and they executed them and later when the country grew and matured when different factions emerged when innocent people started being killed and other wrongs of that nature were perpetrated they changed the law to allow condemned men the opportunity of exile this senator seems to me to be a particularly good reason why we should not adopt a new policy for surely there was greater merit in those men who from tiny resources built this mighty country than there is in us who can scarcely hold on to what they so gloriously won so do i think that we should just let them go and swell catalan's army no here is what i propose confiscate their money and imprison them in the strongest towns we have and furthermore let no one speak of him again on the pain of being considered a traitor by this senate [Applause] [Music] i edited the speech slightly for clarity if you're my old classics teacher mrs bridlington please don't get angry with me if you didn't manage to follow all of it then don't worry deconstructing an argument is a skill a little bit like reading comprehension and apparently the best way to improve your reading comprehension is to start with a text that is just slightly above your level so you can test yourself in order to understand the arguments caesar is making we can start by putting it into what philosophers call standard form we write it out as a series of numbered statements point one point two point three conclusion of course nobody in real life actually does this the goal is that by seeing it done you will learn to do it almost unconsciously i've put the argument into standard form so that you don't have to and by my estimation there are 33 points plus the big conclusion there isn't really a correct number here like you could probably split it up more but i've split it up in ways that will allow me to show you some concepts i think will be useful if you're analyzing somebody's argument i find it's often useful to start at the end what is their conclusion then we can see how they try and reach it i think caesar's conclusion here is pretty obvious it is in rome's best interests to impose exile on the conspirators rather than summary execution so now we can ask how does he try and justify this because that's what logic and reasoning is all about we're trying to figure out what are we justified in believing i'll take you through his argument and i'll point out some interesting features on the way like a philosophy tour guide hands and arms inside the vehicle everyone let's go point number one making political decisions in anger is likely to result in overzealous punishments number two overzealous punishments are likely to result in people remembering the punishment not the crime making political decisions in anger is likely to be called cruelty and arrogance previous senates had cause to be angry previous senates acted with restraint for example against the rhodians and carthaginians previous senates made good decisions therefore acting with restraint rather than out of anger leads to good decisions right there we've got our first six points they're called premises and then we take the next step to a mini conclusion philosophers call that step an inference and we want to check that each inference is justified there are two kinds of inference we need to know inductive and deductive here's a really simple deductive inference all dogs go to heaven dan is a dog therefore dan goes to heaven that's deductive reasoning and it is bulletproof if number one is true and number two is true then the conclusion must be true it is inescapable and we would say that this argument is valid now try this one emphasize all french people can play poker james bond is french therefore james bond can play poker that is deductive reasoning this argument is valid if the premises are true the conclusion must be that's all valid means but the premises of course are not true not all french people can play poker and james bond is not french as we all know james bond is italian hey michiama bondini james or bondini i got the license to kill the m and mi6 it stands for meatball my apologies to the nation of italy for the offensive caricature of one of your most famous historical figures we would say that this argument is valid but it is not sound a sound argument is one that is valid and also the premises are true bonus points by sheer coincidence the conclusion is actually true james bond can play poker but that doesn't mean this is a good argument we would not be justified in believing that james bond can play poker on the basis of this argument if you ever get lost just remember what we're trying to do is figure out whether the argument justifies believing the conclusion so check out that bit from caesar again making political decisions in anger is likely to result in overzealous punishments overzealous punishments are likely to result in people remembering the punishment not the crime making political decisions in anger is likely to be called cruel previous senates had cause to be angry previous senates acted with restraint previous sentence made good decisions therefore acting with restraint rather than out of anger leads to good decisions that's not deductive reasoning the premises could all be true and the conclusion still false like maybe previous senates made good decisions out of luck maybe an angry political decision won't be called cruel and arrogant this time around for some reason we don't know caesar is using the other kind of inference here inductive if the premises are true the conclusion is likely but not certain induction isn't necessarily a bad thing we do it all the time science is based on induction the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow because it's risen every other day that's induction the belief that your teeth will stay intact when you bite into a tasty sandwich and not shoot out of your skull or turn into marshmallows that's all induction point number eight previous speakers have highlighted the horrors of the conspiracy these speeches could not have been meant to make us detest the conspirators because we already do therefore these speeches must have been made out of anger again this is inductive maybe the speeches were made for some other reason senator decimus solanus argued for the conspirators to be executed either he recommended execution because he was afraid of what they might do or because it was the most severe penalty he could think of or because he is angry caesar doesn't say that last bit out loud i've had to fill that in uncovering the hidden premises in real world arguments is kind of an art you've got to figure out what must this person be assuming in order for their argument to make sense like why does caesar go from talking about anger to suddenly talking about this guy decimus solanus there's probably some kind of connection right so let's see where he's going with it senator desmos solanus argued for the conspirators to be executed either he recommended execution because he was afraid of what they might do or because it was the most severe penalty he could think of or because he is angry he cannot be afraid since we have the conspirators under guard it cannot be the most severe penalty he can think of since summary execution would actually be a relief not a penalty therefore desmos solanus must have spoken out of anger so aha we've got a warning about not making political decisions in anger and caesar is using this guy decimus solanus as an example of that whilst also trying not to make him look bad that's why it went unstated if you're very clever you'll have noticed that this little section is actually deductive either he recommended execution because he's afraid or because it's the most severe penalty or because he's angry a b or c it isn't a it isn't b so it must be c that's deductive reasoning doesn't mean that it's sound maybe there's d e f and q that caesar isn't considering but it is deductive and valid senator desmus solanus did not argue for the conspirators to be whipped before they are executed either he did not recommend whipping because it is illegal and he cares about the law or because it is too cruel or and again this is unstated because he is angry and not thinking clearly he cannot care about the law because summary execution is also illegal nobody can believe that any punishment could be too cruel for these conspirators therefore again senator desimona solanus must have spoken out of anger again it's deductively valid and caesar is repeating himself a little bit here that's twice now he's reached the mini conclusion that desmos solanus is majorly pissed he's used two different arguments to reach the same point and here's where he's going with it mini conclusion summary execution is a position that is being considered out of anger we're taking points 10 15 and 20 and combining them here can you see how the argument is starting to click together we make some points we get a mini conclusion we add those mini conclusions and we see where they go now we can see why he argued for decimal celanus being angry twice the mini conclusion he's trying to reach is that the senate as a whole is only considering execution because everyone's pissed if he'd only argued once that one guy is pissed might not have carried it so he nails decimal solanus down twice and combines it with the bit from before about other speakers being angry too philosophers would say that his premises support the conclusion conjointly on their own they're not so hot but together now we're cooking we're two-thirds of the way through now so let's push on to the end 22 summary executions have previously led to innocent people being killed and other negative consequences for example in athens when the spartans took over and in rome under sulla rome used to practice summary executions which led to innocent people being killed therefore summary execution in this case is likely to lead to innocent people being killed and negative consequences huh seems like we made a bit of a jump there and you might have noticed i labeled that mini conclusion 25. that's because there's a hidden unstated assumption here 24 our situation is similar to those examples in relevant ways and not dissimilar in any relevant ways caesar is making an argument from analogy here he's saying executions went wrong before in athens and in rome and they'll go wrong again now and in order to do that he has to assume that the situations can actually be compared like maybe things went wrong in athens for some other reason maybe it wasn't the executions maybe maybe the spartans executed people in a particularly brutal way and that was the real problem but in order to make the comparison caesar has to assume that the analogy works which is inductive but magnifying glass is out gang we're about to come across some more unstated assumptions 26 if we summarily execute the conspirators it will set a precedent for future consoles to do likewise if future consoles feel empowered to summarily execute roman citizens it is possible that innocent people will be killed 28 big unstated assumption the killing of innocent people would be made likely enough by this precedent that we should avoid setting it oh that last one might not be true maybe executing them would set a bad precedent but there's some other factor that means that just won't be a problem we're on the home stretch now and here's another unstated assumption innocent people being killed and other negative consequences are against rome's best interests unstated but probably not controversial i'm sure most of the senators could agree to some version of that so let's put this whole section together 26 if we execute the conspirators it will set a bad precedent if future consuls feel empowered to execute roman citizens they might kill innocent people this is likely enough that we should avoid setting the precedent killing innocent people is against rome's best interests therefore summary execution in this case is likely to be against rome's best interests and now i play polymerization to combine point 30 with 0.21 therefore summary execution is a recommendation made in anger likely to be contrary to rome's interests nice nice but in latin obviously so bonham bonham but we're not done yet remember the big conclusion is that caesar wants them exiled not killed and he hasn't actually argued for exile yet but we're pretty close to the end of the speech this is like when a police show only has five minutes of the episode left but they haven't caught the killer it's time to start making some huge assumptions 32 imposing exile is a decision made in restraint not anger and 33 imposing exile is not likely to be contrary to rome's interests ooh that last one's kind of a big thing to just assume isn't it maybe exiling them will set a bad precedent that rome doesn't have the cojones to stand up to a coup maybe they'll escape their exile and try again we don't know caesar is sailing dangerously close here to what philosophers call begging the question that's when you assume the very thing that you are supposed to be proving it's a kind of circular reasoning in this case caesar assumes that exile won't be a bad idea when that's like half of your ultimate conclusion dog you should really be trying to prove it here's another quick example of begging the question murder is wrong therefore abortion is wrong this argument doesn't work there's a hidden unstated assumption abortion is a kind of murder murder means wrongful killing so this argument is actually assuming that abortion is wrong when that is the very thing that is in contention here that is just an example try not to get too bogged down in it in my personal experience begging the question is often used to disguise the fact that what you're really basing your argument on is the threat of violence like if you've ever been arrested or had an argument with a police officer you will know that it is absolutely maddening it's like talking to a brick wall because they routinely beg the question they have this cop speak where they try and look like they're justifying what they're doing but it's just a script they either cannot or will not actually have a rational conversation with you and if you challenge them to explain the reasoning behind why they're doing what they're doing they will often get cognitive dissonance they get very angry and sometimes even violent because they assume as a rule that everything they do is okay even when that is the very thing that they are supposed to prove by the way begs the question is not to be confused with prompts the question the fact that i just used that example might prompt the question have i been arguing with police recently but it does not beg the question but let's get to julius caesar's big conclusion we're gonna take points 31 32 33 and point number seven you forgot all about him chekhov's gun here he comes we're gonna make an inductive inference too it is in rome's best interests to impose exile on the conspirators rather than summary execution boom there it is as an actor i can't help but imagine the scene from this speech like the fact that he puts decimal solanus under the spotlight twice might suggest something about their relationship the fact that his big conclusion relies on a couple of massive unstated assumptions that come very fast close to the end suggests to me that he cares more about preventing the execution rather than the exile stuff he spends most of his time on that which also suggests that the vibe in the room must be pretty bloodthirsty if he's having to spend that much time trying to counter it so i i love analyzing acting speeches like this it's like being sherlock holmes it's great you may have spotted that caesar doesn't make his argument in this neat progression he jumps around a lot he repeats himself there's those big unstated assumptions but remember his goal is to persuade not to lay out his argument in the most logical way possible there's the argument but then there's everything else which we call rhetoric and that can make all the difference although apparently not in this case cause the senate did not listen to caesar and those dudes were immediately strangled to death you win some you lose some and that my friends is how you take apart an argument start with the conclusion work your way back separate the inferences from the rhetoric and figure out the unstated assumptions piece of piss use these powers wisely i have to go and pack so that i can move flats you will now immediately forget all of this it will slide off your short-term memory like water off a duck's bottom but the next time you hear a politician make a speech or you read an article you'll be like hey there's something i'm supposed to remember and that something is that james bond is italian with the [ __ ] motive pouring coffee in the cup to run the [ __ ] motor i think the car builds a lot of just about jehovah's still they act like knowing how they use it to get over but for them it's all the same as it is for the rest running in circles are nothing but of all the stress thick my reads are dripped and flipped to a fourth dimension lots of reasons to hide but four dimension think i'm more than just the shell but hell don't agree i think that god is dead took belief in me narrative but i got mad at fables no damn cat no damn cradle too many colors in this life for me to see a path some i thought trapped in the mirror screaming free at last made a cross i made christ laugh death site stabbed i tried to [ __ ] with montana wild hag with damn why does everybody think their links have plans is there a truth i can understand i wanna be a part of something but applauded by the heads up all dying at random nice thoughts nice thought of hearing like a phantom nice thoughts nice thoughts all i do is fear him i watch i watch people from a tower cause i don't want them [Music] breathing the smoke trying [Music] [Music] there's nothing here for me i'd rather be across there i know wherever i go i'm taking trouble with me but this bubble about to pop if i don't get outside this [ __ ] city sick of using travel as a metaphor i had to define places in my mind and find spaces length of time because i'm disgracing graceful earth but laying low in the beg for sun summer pray for snow there we go another cycle bursting popping like this earth was rotten really i'm the moldy homie like the only option is to light my head on fire but the light is out there available higher please open up to me show your potency turn painful and it's shameful begging angel grow with me but don't take control till the day that i can recline in the shade no limit as i give and return my heart to the day so what you wanna say do you want another tax do you wanna stay do you wanna stay so what you wanna say do you want another tax do you wanna stay do you wanna stay sadness happiness all in this array order of the things [Music] [Music] i know so many i am the senate

Channel: Philosophy Tube

Views: 785,106

Rating: 4.9483719 out of 5

Keywords: philosophy, logic, rationality, critical thinking, arguments, sallust, catiline war, julius caesar

Id: q8NVy00tfdI

Length: 34min 24sec (2064 seconds)

Published: Fri Jul 31 2020

Reddit Comments

[u/lamby]

So, like, why hasn't the story of Cataline been strip-mined yet into a beautiful-looking film with pro-fascist leanings?

[u/SamBrev]

Good video. I'm a little disappointed it wasn't longer, because I think some of the explanations could have been given a bit more justice, especially since the speech itself took up so much time. But given the circumstances it's a good effort, and very reminiscent of old-school Philosophy Tube. :)

Edit: I'm also a little surprised, tbh, because I kinda expected this video to really lay into - or at least make reference to - the "facts and logic" types like Ben Shapiro, and expose some of their rhetoric and false premises. But maybe that's because I'm too used to the theatrics :P Nevertheless, I'm surprised that side of things went completely unstated.

[u/bubbleflowers]

Please. Someone make a clip of the Italian James Bond. I died laughing at that part.

[u/Plank-boy]

As a fan of the much more pure philosophy of his early videos, I’m exited to watch this one