Laws of thought - Philosophical Concept | Alexandria
Laws of thought: These are often presented as the fundamental axiomatic principles upon which all rational thinking is based, and yet, their perceived self-evidence belies a history of philosophical contention and evolving interpretation. Are they truly laws governing thought, or merely useful constructs?
The explicit articulation of what are termed the "laws of thought" appears primarily in the work of George Boole in the mid-19th century, specifically in his 1854 publication An Investigation of the Laws of Thought on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities. However, the roots of these laws stretch back much further, intertwined with the development of logic itself. Aristotle's work on syllogisms laid much of the groundwork centuries earlier, establishing principles for deduction and valid syllogism arguments. The medieval period witnessed further elaboration. The explosion of logic and philosophy in the 19th century would formalize these laws.
The traditional formulation includes three primary laws: The Law of Identity (A is A), the Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot be both A and not-A), and the Law of Excluded Middle (Either A or not-A must be true). Boole's contribution lay in expressing these laws algebraically, paving the way for modern computing. However, interpretations have varied. Some view them as descriptive laws about how humans actually think (prone to cognitive bias), while others see them as prescriptive laws dictating how we ought to think for rational thinking. Such discussions bleed into epistemology. The rise of quantum mechanics challenged the Law of the Excluded Middle in certain contexts, further complicating their status. The field of experimental philosophy utilizes studies like the Wason test to study human biases in rational thinking, including in following the Laws of Though.
The enduring legacy of the laws of thought is complex. While their status as absolute, inviolable rules has been questioned—particularly in light of cognitive science and advancements in physics—they remain a cornerstone of formal logic and computer science. They force consideration of what constitutes rational thought and whether such thought is a universal, objective standard or culturally contingent and culturally specific. Do these laws truly represent the structure of reality, or are they simply useful tools for navigating it? This question continues to fuel philosophical argumentation and reflection, ensuring that the "Laws of Thought" remain a vital, if contentious, subject of inquiry.