Generalization and Logic: Negation of ‘Logical Reasoning’ Defines Humans’ Relation to Nature

Take the case of humans and animals. ‘Humans’ and ‘animals’ are two generalized and further categorized objects. In the perspective of common sense objects like ‘humans’ or ‘animals’ does not play much trouble. But in the context of modern logic, ‘humans’ and ‘animals’ are two generalized epistemological objects in which one entity of each represents the whole class. Apparently this seems to be working, because logic normally works on ‘apparent realities’—realities in static condition.

Beyond logical interpretation: these categories, ‘animal’ and ‘humans’ are not at all existing independently in nature. ‘Humans’ and ‘animals’ are assembled by taking out the relative general traits and then categorized it into two broad divisions. Thus ‘Humans’ represents some general character of humans and ‘animals’ represents some general character of animals relative to humans and his civilizational understandings. But these two categories do not directly represent the physical reality because: an assembly of certain group of traits, which are relative to humans, does not represent the physical class because these generalizations are based on human’s relative understanding of these two entities in static conditions. An animal is always delicately interconnected to its surroundings via innumerable ways. No human knowledge is able to comprehend all these interconnections because an animal’s relation to nature is relative to not only the animal but also to innumerable other entities and surroundings. The development of intelligence in human is meant for his food gathering and survival. Whatever may the complexities of humans’ intellectual methodology and maneuverability still all its basics are based on the methodology of food gathering and survival—all others are methodological copies of the same. Humans never will be able to derive comprehensively anything as knowledge in concrete form that has relative relation to other natural entities, because human cannot position himself in place of other entities.

As much the generalized objects, like ‘humans’ or ‘animals’ move hierarchically superior in logical order of reasoning that much their quality relative to natural existence wither away. This would be revealed when humans enter with these pre-molded concepts—reasoning— into phenomenological intercourse with any particular entity. The division of living creatures, and the logical abstraction as ‘humans’ and ‘animals’ make an impression of contributing some sorts of knowledge, but that understanding or knowledge humans gain through these generalization abstraction and further categorization is relative to his own logical order and other order of reasoning compartments. It has no direct relation to nature in the context of valid knowledge and understanding.

Now let us verify this statement:
“Since the common is singled out in objects when they are being identified, and the objects are identified in a class from the standpoint of this common feature, i.e. any one of them therefore represent all the other elements of the class, (’the whole class’), identification abstraction is often regarded in the history of philosophy and logic as generalizing, as generalization of the objects studied by identifying them.” (Dmitry Grosky, Generalization and Cognition, Progress Publishers Moscow, 1985 p.15)

Generalization makes such situation that if ‘any one of them can… represent all the other’ then it can stay only in logic as a generalized object, and never in objective condition. The ‘any one’ which represents the whole class cannot be considered as the real one, because it is the ‘one’ which contains only the common traits. ‘Common traits’ are derived and developed in humans’ consciousness through some sorts of understanding: that can be by simply comparing with the surroundings or arranging some relative aspects in structured manner. But these elements—the common traits—which are the basics of generalization have no absolute existence. It can change according to the changing understandings of humans. So, when we take some relative traits or aspects as ‘common’, and generalize a typical class, that categorization may not have considered all the required parameters, or, nether possible to do such absolute categorization, nor the consciousness could comprehend all the aspects. In a dynamic knowledge system, these categorizations and further logical buildups based on such generalization abstraction has only primary validity. This primary understanding may change when the knowledge gatherer immersed in phenomenological intercourse with the entity and its surroundings.
Logic gives an absolute opportunity to divide any kind of situation into two—binary system. Other representations are normally being supplemented from the binary hangover around each. This apparently makes ‘logic’ appears as logical, but really this situation has developed due to the relative understating of humans. This gives some feeling that once one part of the binary is overthrown the other will stay. Through different social revolutions and communist-Marxist- Maoist experiences proved that this is absolutely wrong. Experiences prove that the binary cannot be separated, because as such there is no binary, or, the binary stays in logic not in reality. The binary, if at all is there, is interconnected with lot of other factors and aspects relative to innumerable entities and phenomena; unless these relations are changed, methodological understandings and system of knowledge are redefined; the situation will not change fundamentally. Knowing out one part of the binary, for the survival of other, is simple formal logical understanding.

So, the generalized objects like ‘humans’ and ‘animals’ represents synthetic linkage in understanding with the others, and lies only in the epistemological apparatus of human. Phenomenological intercourse will give different knowledge; this knowledge varies from observer to observer. This is the dynamic nature of knowledge, and generalization at certain extent is only possible through the knowledge synthesis of the observers. Still it cannot be considered as knowledge close to reality, because reality can be interpreted from different contradictory relative aspects, and all are true in its relative relations.

Interpreting phenomenology with logic, intellectual freeplay of logic, again to phenomenology, and redefine further based complex logic— situation moves from simple logic to complex logic—is the face value of class system. This logical interpretation will continue to attain complexities—as it move towards higher order of hierarchy of knowledge— until its cyclic end reaches due the fragility of external factors which had been compromised when the logical knowledge was ascending the hierarchy. All the social organs in a class society are developed based on this destructive mechanism. The ideology of killing—both humans and animal—is prevailing as an accepted norm in capitalist societies, because they think by annihilating one half of the binary, they will succeed in making unidirectional permanency. In most of the cases, hitherto existing interpretations are based on this logical binary undertaking. Methodologically, the basics of Marxist-Maoist understanding are not different with this bourgeois methodology. Unless the whole system is detached from the Western concept of finding logical answer for class questions, which is mostly contributed by academic knowledge systems, egalitarian culture and its relation to human and nature are difficult to unfold.

The content of this statement is not a new discovery, and it had been practiced cautiously by Buddha and Jain traditions. But the basic relation between logic and phenomenology were consciously destroyed by the Western and Brahminical class systems. The Western knowledge system was evolved as a product of class oppression, exploitation of nature, and further capital accumulation fused with racism. Class societies reject the aspect of phenomenological intercourse of understanding and take the path of logical interpretation. All the branch of physical science, philosophy and social science are the products of this exercise. More than true relations, quick and managed solutions and synthetic structures are the requirement for flexible interpretations. Thus logic occupied the space as the basic element of modern western class knowledge system. Though it seems to be stylish and complicated, it is difficult for this system to stand in front of nature thought, because, the most basic foundation of this system is built up against the most human conceivable understandings and knowledge, and also contrary to the basic laws of nature.

When humans trekking through scientific knowledge—mostly assemblies of logical complexities—he loses his relation to nature inch by inch. As such capitalism does not have any future. No further amazing growth or change is going to come out of it. Commercial prostitution, commercial free-sex, organ sale and transplant, Hollywood-Bollywood, war and torture, Nobel and Oscar, rude sports competitions, champions, complete isolation from nature and surroundings, killings, sheer competitions, destruction, poisoning of masses, prisons, commercialized judicial systems, punishments as ethics, gods and heavens, beauty pageants, mass killings, carbon credit, etc all these cheap and sub-intellectual vulgar concepts can be codified as the contributions of capitalism. All these contain highly degraded contents which go against human’s basic relation to nature. In a capitalist society the state itself is an assembly of partial factors of all these. The scientific growth and technological culture contributed by the huge coole intellectual sections of modern capitalism could draw humans to unprecedented catastrophe if not prevented by replacing the present logical interpretation of knowledge system by phenomenological understandings. The intellectual mysticism of Western system and monopoly of logical knowledge by Western universities will wither once these areas are socialized through mass activities.