Better - according to my circle

By guest explorer: Fred Shivvin

The series about the adjective Equal made me think about circular logic. 

I pointed out the argument used by those who set out to oppress others that they are somehow ‘better’ than them, and this justifies both their oppressive actions and their continued status as oppressors.

  

Circular logic (or circular reasoning) is used by people in ‘arguments’ to justify something they believe. 

The 'argument' starts with a point (the premise) that the person assumes is true: in this case 'I am better (superior) than you'. It assumes you already agree that this premise is true, and then no new information is provided to support that premise. You can tell it's circular logic because you can start at either word 'I' in the image and read what seems like a justification. But it's just a circle.

Some circular logic can even sound convincing, but it only convinces people who already agree with the assumed premise. For the rest of us who don’t accept the premise to start with, the argument gives us no reason to change our thinking. 

I don't happen to agree with the premise that any people are 'better' than others, so I don't agree this is the reason that some people dominate others. 

It's not logic at all. It’s a self-reinforcing circle of belief. 

This is why circular 'logic' features so often in 'arguments' about religion.

Circles of justification are extremely common. Spotting a circular argument gives me a sense of accomplishment. They are also sometimes quite alarming. 

One type of circular logic merely restates the assumed premise in slightly different words. It looks like this: 

♦️ A (premise) is true because of B (the premise restated in different words).

    ♦️ The president was a great communicator because he talked effectively to the people: ‘great communicator’ is restated as ‘talked effectively’.

    ♦️ Athletic people are better at track and field because they are very fit and muscular: ‘athletic’ is restated as ‘fit and muscular’.

Another type of circular logic assumes the premise is true or agreed with, and then uses it in reverse to explain it. It looks like this: 

♦️ A (premise) is true because of B (reason: the premise stated in reverse).

    ♦️ Anyone who kills someone is mentally ill (premise without evidence) because only a mentally ill person could kill someone (premise in reverse).

    ♦️ I am old enough to have a later curfew (assumed premise), so I should be allowed to stay out after 10 pm.

    ♦️ It is okay to destroy property when you are angry (assumed premise) because angry people destroy things.

Keep your eyes open and you will see circular logic everywhere.

So, what would the colonial oppressors’ circular logic look like - remembering they wanted to justify the domination and exploitation of others?

This sort of circle? Start at either word 'we'. 'We are better than you because we are 'on top' (i.e. dominating you) because we are better than you because we are 'on top' because we are better than you because we are 'on top' because...'. (It works better when you read it around the circle!)

In fact, the logic of colonial oppressors and power abusers everywhere is even more tortured and convoluted than this circular logic. 

It assumes a starting premise ('we are better than you') is true, and then provides a justification that is actually the premise restated with different words (because we are 'on top' which equals 'being above/superior' to you), that then becomes the new premise using this slightly different meaning 'superior' for the word 'better' ('anyone who is on top/above/superior must be better/superior'), which is then justified with what that looks like the premise in reverse ('superior' people are 'those on top' i.e. dominating others).

That sentence hurts my head.

It is still a circle of words, with circular logic, but maybe more like a double circle, which looks like this: 

♦️ We are 'on top' (dominion over all) because we are better (the more advanced by our definition) than 'them', and we are better (superior people) than 'them' because we are 'on top' (dominating through ruthlessness and aggression). 

 

In this diagram, I’ve added text to show the way the words ‘better’ and 'on top' shift meaning and are used as part of the restating, to complete the circle of justification. 

As the Equal series concluded, only the monarchs, dictators and European colonialists who were seeking to dominate others accepted this false circular 'logic'. 

They not only accepted this circular reasoning; they integrate it into their world view. It is a circle of belief.

Most of those who were dominated saw the circular, self-justifying argument for what it was. They did not accept the original premise. 

It is the circular logic of oppressors and abusers everywhere - nations and individuals. It is also the false argument of the white supremacist movement. 

It might be funny to think about how bad the logic is, if it weren’t so scary.