Quote of the Week: John of Salisbury
Although this art of logic has manifold utility, still, if one is learned only in it, and ignorant of aught else, he is actually retarded, rather than helped to progress in philosophy, since he becomes a victim of verbosity and overconfidence. By itself, logic is practically useless. Only when it is associated with other studies does logic shine, and then by a virtue that is communicated by them. Considerable indulgence should, however, be shown to the young, in whom verbosity should be temporarily tolerated, so that they may thus acquire abundance of eloquence. The minds of the immature, even as their [growing] bodies, must first be [well] fed, lest they become emaciated. Thus, by means of plenty of nourishing food, they can put on weight and acquire strength. During this stage, the flesh is allowed to luxuriate to a degree that might [otherwise] be considered excessive. At a later age, the surplus fat of the young will be sufficiently burned out and purified by the exertion of labor, the burden of responsibility, and the strain of work. As students mature and grow in understanding, our tolerance of unrestrained verbosity should diminish, and the impudence of sophistry (which Aristotle calls ‘contentious,’ but we refer to as ‘deceitful’ or ‘cavilling’) should be suppressed. It is the duty of those who have the title and function of teachers to see this. However, rules alone are useless. Theoretical principles must be consolidated by practice and assiduous exercise, except perhaps where a disposition has already been transformed into a habit.
– John of Salisbury. Metalogicon. trans. Daniel D. McGarry (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1971), 244-25 (IV:28).
Comments are closed.
How apropos!
Mark
I wonder if I should have told people who John of Salisbury is. Perhaps Policraticus would like to say something about that ;)
Henry,
“I wonder if I should have told people who John of Salisbury is.”
Probably not necessary. The interest and utility would be minimal anyway. He wrote neither the Bible nor the Catechism. His writings are ill-suited to offer up the good gotcha quote.
Gerald,
I suspect you are right. But if someone asks, I will answer.
I certainly chose this quote because I think explains quite a bit of the problem we face on the net. People “practice logic” without a sufficient philosophical background, ending up debating people for an ideological position with one continuous logical sleight of hand after another. Their arguments are never consistent, which is a sure sign of their sophistry. And as John points out, it demonstrates an immature mind who has not learned that logic is a tool that is not self-sufficient on its own and requires knowledge of the other sciences to apply its dictates properly.
Start with a false premise, and you end up with a false conclusion. Or if you start as an ideologue looking to find a defense for a given conclusion, you can find false premises which lead you to it.
Henry,
I agree with your reasons. They reflect mine.