Dear Eugene:
Having written the first letter by way of introduction, I now am ready
for a gradual approach to my subject.
Logic aims to instruct the human mind as to its own nature and
processes; it will lay bare the interior working of our mind for our
guidance. The object of the study of logic is thought, its nature, and
its proper classification.
The human brain performs the function of thinking as involuntarily as
the chest the function of breathing. However, we can, by our will, stop
breathing for a while, and accelerate or retard the breathing movements.
In the same way, the will can control the thoughts. We may choose any
object as the subject matter of our thought, and yet we may quickly
convince ourselves that the power of our will and the freedom of the
mind are not any greater than the freedom of the chest in breathing.
While logic undertakes to assign the proper position to our brain, still
it has to remember that nature has already assigned that position.
It is with logic as it is with other sciences. They draw wisdom from the
mysterious source of plain experience. Agriculture, e. g., aims to teach
the farmer how to cultivate the soil; but fields were tilled long before
any agricultural college had begun its lectures. In the same way human
beings think without ever having heard of logic. But by practice they
improve their innate faculty of thought, they make progress, they
gradually learn to make better use of it. Finally, just as the farmer
arrives at the science of agriculture, so the thinker arrives at logic,
acquires a clear consciousness of his faculty of thought and a
professional dexterity in applying it.
I have two purposes in mind in saying this. Firstly, you must not expect
too much from this science, for you cannot set contrary brains to rights
by any logic. Secondly, you must not think too little of it, by
regarding the matter as mere scholastic word-mongery and useless
hairsplitting. In daily life, as well as in all sciences, we never
operate without the help of thought, but only with it, hence an
understanding of the nature of the processes of thought is of eminent
value.
Logic has its history like all sciences. Aristotle, whom Marx calls the
"Grecian giant of thought," is universally recognized as its founder.
After the classic culture of antiquity had been buried by barbarism, the
name of Bacon of Verulam rose with the beginning of modern times as a
philosophical light of the first order. His most famous work is entitled
"Novum Organon." By the new organ he meant a new method of research
which should be founded on experience, instead of the subtleties of the
purely introspective method hitherto in vogue. After him, Descartes, or
Cartesius, as he called himself in literature, wrote his still famous
work, "About Methods." I furthermore recall Immanuel Kant's "Critique of
Reason," Johann Gottlieb Fichte's "Theory of Science," and finally
Hegel, of whom the biographer said that he was as famous in the
scientific world as Napoleon in the political.
Hegel calls his chief work "Logic," and bases his whole system on the
"dialectic method." You have only to look at the titles of these
philosophical masterpieces in order to recognize that they all treat of
the same subject which we are making our special study, viz., the light
of understanding. The great philosophers of all times have searched for
the true method, the method of truth, for the way in which understanding
and reason arrive at science.
I merely wish to indicate that this subject has its famous history, but
I do not care to enter more deeply into it. I will not speak of the
oppression and persecution, which was inaugurated by religious
fanaticism. I will not enumerate the various events that led to a
greater and greater light from generation to generation. The attempt to
trace this history would entangle us in many disputed questions and
errors which would only increase the difficulties of this study for the
beginner.
If a teacher of technology were to instruct you on steam engines and, to
explain their first incomplete invention, trace their further
development historically from improvement to improvement, until he
should arrive at the height of perfection attained in their present day
construction, he would also be advancing on a path, but on a tedious
one. I shall endeavor to show my subject at the outset in the very
clearest light which has ever been thrown on it by the help of the
nations of all times. If I succeed in this, it will be easy in the
future, in the reading of any author, to separate the chaff from the
wheat.
I can afford to dispense with quotations and proofs from others in
trying to make my case and demonstrating the positive product of social
culture, for we are dealing with the most universal and omnipresent
object,--one which enters into every spoken or written sentence with its
own body. If anybody tells of far off times or wonderful things, he must
quote witnesses. Now, much of what I have to say for my case may sound
wonderful, because it runs counter to the popular prejudice, but the
only witness required to prove the truth of my statements is the clear
brain of my pupil, who has only to examine his own experience without
preconceived notions, in order to find proofs on every hand.
It is surprising in the first place, that such a near at hand object has
not been understood long ago and that so much still remains to be
explained and to be taught after thousands of years of study. But you
know that just as the small things are often great, and great things
small, so the nearest things are often hidden and the hidden things
nearest.
I promised you in the first sentences of this letter, dear Eugene, that
I would now pass from introduction to subject matter. But since I have
really continued to move around the outer edge of the subject instead of
entering into its midst, you might become impatient, and so I will
justify my method. It is a peculiarity of this subject matter that it
exposes me to this charge. It is a peculiarity of thought that it never
stays with itself, but always digresses to other things. The thought is
the plank to which I should stick, but it is the nature of this plank
never to stick. Thinking is a thing full of contradictions, a
dialectical secret.
Now I know that here I am saying something which it is very hard for you
to understand. But look here, has it not always been so? When you began
declining Latin words in the sixth class, you were unable at once to
grasp the full meaning of declension. You knew what you were doing, and
yet you did not entirely understand it. Only after penetrating more
deeply into the construction of the language did the meaning and purpose
of the beginning become clear to you. In the same way, you now must try
to digest as much as you can of what I say, and after you have gone more
deeply into this matter, you will fully understand me from beginning to
end. In taking lessons from an author, on an unknown subject, I have
always followed the method of first getting a superficial view of the
subject, of glancing over its many pages and chapters, in order to
return to the beginning and acquire a thorough knowledge by repeated
study. With the growing familiarity with the subject the ability to
understand it grew, and at the conclusion the thing became clear to me.
This is the only correct method I can recommend to you.
In conclusion let me say for to-day in passing that the recommendation
of the correct method for studying logic is not only an introduction,
but, as I have already said, the subject matter of science itself.