Simple Logic in 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴

By Liliann Klouda

Gandalf (J. R. R. Tolkien, 1892-1973. The Fellowship of the Ring.) By Nidoart, Micthev, Eugenio Hansen, OFS. Creative Commons license viewable at <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:All_we_have_to_decide_is_what_to_do_with_the_time_that_is_given_us._Gandalf._J._R._R._Tolkien,_1892-1973._The_Fellowship_of_the_Ring_-en.svg>

When I used to think of logic, I saw it as a very cold, calculating practice that leaves no room for human emotion. This understanding of logic has changed through my time and experience becoming more familiar with it, but it has been intimidating to someone who sees the world through an emotional lens. As I have grown as a thinker in both logic and mythology, I have begun to find that there is logic in everyday life, even in conversations and moments ruled primarily by emotion. It is not a simple black and white, one or the other. Emotion and logic blend together to make the human experience, and one of the best examples of this can be seen in Peter Jackson’s film adaptation of J. R. R. Tolkien's trilogy, The Lord of the Rings, hereafter referred to as LOTR.

We will be looking strictly at the film version of this intellectual property as it is what I am most familiar with and therefore what I feel most comfortable discussing. The characters in LOTR are, in my opinion, some of the best-written characters in media. The characters, especially the men, are strong and rational—and yet they are also vulnerable and emotional. Their emotions do not hinder their critical thinking; they enhance it and show how logic cannot exist in a vacuum, devoid of emotion.

To begin breaking down the logic present in LOTR, it is perhaps best to start with the most basic deductive form: Modus ponens. Modus ponens follows the structure:

If p then q.

p.

Therefore, q.

This can be seen multiple times throughout LOTR, one of the most memorable instances being a statement from Samwise Gamgee in which he tells Frodo Baggins:

"It's only a passing thing this shadow, even darkness must pass. A new day will come, and when the sun shines, it'll shine out the clearer… I know now folks in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going because they were holding on to something… That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for." (Jackson 2001, 03:22:42-03:23:49).

To break down this quote into modus ponens would look like this: If there is good in this world then it is worth fighting for. There is good in this world. Therefore, it is worth fighting for.

This is not only a valid argument, but a sound argument as well. The conclusion logically follows from the premises and further, the premises are true. There is good in this world even if it is not always apparent. If this argument were to be made in a purely logical way, i.e., devoid of emotion, it would not have had the same impact it did on Frodo or the story. By weaving his argument together with his emotions, Sam is able to emphasize his point, reminding Frodo of their quest and the importance of it despite how bleak things appear at that moment. Being emotional does not make him weak. Instead, he is using his emotions to show strength. The quest has taken its toll on him: he is exhausted and scared. By showing this, it makes this moment even more inspirational. It is this show of strength that inspires Frodo to keep going, finding solace in the fact that though he and Sam might be struggling, they are struggling together for a just cause.

While impactful, this is not the only instance of an emotional argument being made in LOTR. Take for instance, this example from The Two Towers when Meriadoc Brandybuck tells Peregrin Took, “The fires of Isengard will spread, and the woods of Tuckborough and Buckland will burn. And all that was once green and good in this world will be gone. There won't be a Shire, Pippin.” (The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, 02:59:21-02:59:42). This argument is an example of the hypothetical syllogism, a deductive form that follows this structure:

If p then q.

If q then r.

Therefore, if p then r.

Breaking down Merry’s argument into this form would look like this:

If the fires of Isengard are not stopped, they will spread and all that is green and good will be gone.

If all that is green and good is gone, there will not be a Shire.

Therefore, if the fires of Isengard are not stopped, there will not be a Shire.

This is an example of a very clear argument being made, as opposed to the first passage we looked at, in which we had to trim things down to find the argument within. Merry has a very clear point he is trying to make, expressing the importance of putting an end to Isengard’s destruction. This is, once again, a sound argument backed by emotion, not devoid of it. Merry is deeply concerned about the fires spreading, worried for the home that he loves. Merry uses that worry and concern for his home to stress the importance of putting an end to Isengard’s war path. Had Merry shown no sign of worry, Pippin would not have seen any reason to be worried either. Part of being able to communicate effectively, outside of the vacuum of logic and philosophy, is being able to use your emotions as a tool to help make your argument. It is important that your argument is sound without the context of the emotions you use to help make it, but that does not mean that your argument should be devoid of emotion entirely.

Where things become tricky is when it comes to responding to emotional dialogue without either abandoning logic or denying the very real emotions that the other person is experiencing. To address this, we will be looking at an instance of reductio ad absurdum, a deductive form which follows the structure:

To prove: p, assume the opposite: Not-p.

Essentially, it involves proving your point by pointing out how the opposite is absurd. This can very briefly be seen when Aragorn is comforting Gandalf during the last debate after the battle of Pelennor Fields. Gandalf worries he has sent Frodo to his death, to which Aragorn replies, “If Sauron had the ring, we would know it” (Jackson 2003, 03:04:38-03:04:41). This one sentence accomplishes many things, but first we will break down why it works as an argument. Written out in its deductive form it would appear as follows: To prove Sauron does not have the ring. Assume Sauron does have the ring. If Sauron had the ring, there would be very clear signs. There are no clear signs. Therefore, Sauron does not have the ring.

Sauron logically cannot have the ring, meaning he must not have it. Aragorn’s argument is based in logic, but it does not disregard Gandalf’s emotional distress. The original statement made by Gandalf was made out of fear, an emotional response, not a logical one. Aragorn recognizes this and understands the importance of logic in this moment. Gandalf needs to be pulled out of his purely emotional thought process, and instead of disregarding his concern because it lacks any logical reasoning, Aragorn responds with logic to ease his friend’s distress. Logic can be a useful tool when combating the emotional traps that humans are so prone to falling into. However, it is the responsibility of the logician to respond with the understanding that emotions, just like logic, are inherent in humans and therefore not inherently right or wrong.

It is possible for logic and emotion to exist separately, in the abstract, but you cannot truly separate them in reality. The idea that logic can exist in a vacuum is something that has been perpetuated by people who would deny their own humanity. Logical thinking is one of the things that separates humans from other animals, but so are emotions. The ability to feel love and loss are so intrinsically tied to us, something we evolved to feel as we evolved the capability to think logically. Communicating your argument effectively is important, but that communication is almost always going to need to be backed by some kind of emotion. Humans are, whether we like it or not, driven by emotion. Understanding that and being able to use your emotions in a constructive way, helping you build your argument, is important when communicating in day-to-day life. To make an argument founded solely in logic would be to make an argument devoid of the context of being human. One cannot exist without the other, just as the brain cannot exist without the heart.

Works Cited

Jackson, Peter, director. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Extended Edition. New Line Cinema, 2002.

Jackson, Peter, director. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Extended Edition. New Line Cinema, 2003.

Liliann Klouda is a freshman at CT State Tunxis.