The question I am posing is thus, at what point does a logical fallacy cease being bad logic and become ignorance of the issue at hand and at what point do we ridicule those who are merely lacking knowledge about the issue? Specifically regarding Aesop’s Fables, in the one we read that an ant used the information at hand in order to craft a logical construct that was then used to reach a determination of the quality of life that the chrysalis was experiencing. When more information was gathered the ant would have obviously reached a different termination of the logical construct he had developed. However, the newly morphed butterfly chose to lambast the ant with his ignorance instead of rising to be the greater person (insectoid) and turning this situation into a teaching experience about broadening ones horizons and casting the mind into higher pathways of thought. The butterfly chose instead to deride the ant for not recognizing that some change was occurring. But we know that this was the best supposition the ant could come away with using the information at hand. Should the ant have chosen instead to sit a spell and gather more information meanwhile neglecting the duties he was aspiring to accomplish? One could say that he should have asked the chrysalis to explain why he was in the shape he was, but also, when the ant reached his conclusion and announced it should not the soon to be butterfly corrected him? But if the butterfly was unable to communicate while in the cocoon should he have not realized this and then when he had the chance chosen to correct the ant?
Basically the butterfly turned out be a dick since it is obvious that the ant did not have a fully realized scientific knowledge of the anatomy and life cycle of a caterpillar.
No comments:
Post a Comment