What is Logical Thinking? (by Masako Watanabe, Iwanami Shinsho)

※Note: It is long (it ended up being about 8,000 characters 💦)

It was said to be released in October 2024, and it is a book I have wanted to read for a long time.

As of now, it might be the best book I have read in 2024. It was a critical hit for me personally. Ah, it feels like it scratches an itch.

Things you should know when using words to understand or convey something, but which haven't really been talked about much until now, seem to be vividly depicted in the framework of this book. It might be a bit difficult in some parts, but once you finish reading it, it feels like you are drawing lines on a blank baseboard and classifying things as you build up a single system, giving you the feeling of having acquired a new garden of thought (at least, that's the feeling...).

This book is based on a more specialized book that the author published previously.

I really wanted to read it, but I was hesitant because it was a bit expensive 💦 (sorry).
In the midst of that, I thought, 'What is Logical Thinking?' by this author is being published in Iwanami Shinsho—this is a must-buy! So I pre-ordered and read it.

As usual, I have no confidence that I can write accurately about the things I thought were good in this book, but I will write about them without worrying, based on the concept of 'speaking confidently even if you haven't read it.'

＊

Now, the text written in this book itself doesn't feel particularly eccentric, and as usual, it builds up things like 'Ah, that might be true,' but I thought the interesting point was that by the end, your initial impression of 'logical thinking' is overturned.

What does that mean?

First, what kind of impression do you have of 'logical thinking'?

I had this impression:

Since it is 'logic,' there must be things that are 'logically correct' and 'logically incorrect.' If so,the image that 'logically correct thinking' must surely only be one thingcomes to mind.

It's hard to imagine that everyone is logical, yet everyone is all over the place, isn't it? Conversely, if everyone were illogical, it would make sense that everyone is saying different things.

This is just an image.

But if you think about it calmly, don't these situations happen? Person A and Person B have completely different opinions. For example, views differ by country. It happens all the time that the views of the United States, China, and Japan are completely different. So, is the U.S. logical and China not? That shouldn't be the case; since they are deciding the future of their countries, each must be thinking logically with a certain degree of logical thinking.

Or, Person C and Person D have completely different ways of speaking. Person C stated the conclusion first. Then, they gave three reasons, and finally stated the conclusion again. On the other hand, Person D does not state the conclusion first. First, they say, 'There is this view, but there is this counterargument to it,' and then... they say various things and finally state the conclusion.
Couldn't both be called logical?

Everyone is logical, yet everyone is saying something different. What is going on?

I believe this book provides a brilliant answer to this vague feeling of unease.

*

This book first divides "logical thinking" into "formal logic" and "essential logic" or "substantive logic." The former is a system of symbolic logic like P∧Q or P→Q, which is a universal way of thinking. What is discussed in this book is the latter, "essential logic" or "substantive logic."

Regarding this essential or substantive logic, the book's argument is that there are cultural differences in the development of logical thinking.

The book defines "being logical" in terms of essential logic as

"a sense that arises from the fact that the elements necessary for description are arranged in the order expected by the reader."

It says.

Being logical is built upon social consensus.

Doesn't this seem like a rather bold conclusion that differs from the general image of "logical thinking"?

Wow, I thought it was amazing to go as far as to say this.

However, the author analyzes essays and academic papers from the United States, France, Iran, and Japan as representative patterns among the various patterns of logical thinking development found around the world, and summarizes the cultural foundations and social construction of that logical thinking. She then classifies these into economic, political, legal-technical, and social domains from the perspectives of formality/substantivity and objectivity/subjectivity.

I believe this book summarizes the results of this research (sorry, I haven't read the thick version 💦).

I will quote the table that also appears in this book.

This classification is, of course, not an absolute one but merely one indicator, and while countries, domains, and structures do not perfectly align, I thought it was a very important perspective for writing sentences that people will find logical.

So, thinking I would consider it a bit more concretely, I tried a little experiment in my article the other day.

Using this as a springboard, I will take a look at them one by one.

To be precise, the question is, should people who have just started on note join a collaborative magazine?

Phase 1 (American-style essay, economic domain)

This was written with the image of an American-style 5-paragraph essay in mind.

The biggest feature is writing the conclusion first. Then, you state three grounds, and finally, you write the same conclusion in different words (which is why there are (1) through (5)).
Whether it is efficient is emphasized. It is very simple.

The PREP method is probably also in this lineage.
So-called business documents might almost all be in this form.
In short, it is suitable for the economic domain, where results are produced efficiently.
The real challenge is how much valuable analysis you can put into (2), (3), and (4). That is the only place where the battle is won or lost. If you go on and on about how there is this opposing view, you will be scolded for saying unnecessary things.

In a capitalist society, this might be becoming the global standard (not that I don't have concerns about whether this is good or bad).

Phase 2 (French-style dissertation, political domain)

This was written with the image of a French-style dissertation in mind.

I thought, "What is a dissertation?" but it seems to be a short essay based on the French-style dialectics as its basic structure.
It is organized into the structure of "A. General view," "B. Opposing view," and "C. View that synthesizes them," and resolves the contradiction between <thesis> and <antithesis> with <synthesis>.
It is a very careful approach where the opposing theory B is examined just as much, and the theory C that synthesizes those contradictions is also examined just as much.
Therefore, here, whether the deliberation is sufficiently exhausted is emphasized.

It can also be said that this is in line with the political domain, which emphasizes exhausting discussions so as not to go against public welfare.
However, while this is careful, it tends to become long. It was hard to write...
Another feature is that the final conclusion develops into the next question. It expands from simple things to more complex ones.
It feels like it could continue even further.

It is, in a sense, the exact opposite of the American style.

Phase 3 (Iranian-style Ensha, legal technology domain)

This was written with the image of an Iranian-style Ensha. I thought, "What on earth is Ensha?"

What is Ensha anyway (for the second time), but apparently, school essays in Iran are called Ensha.

This was the most difficult part, but it emphasizes the preservation of truth and the observance of norms.
And, I think a characteristic feature is that it uses so-called syllogisms to provide proof.

In other words
1. Note's features are wonderful.
2. Collaborative magazines are a feature of Note.
3. Therefore, collaborative magazines are wonderful.
This is the argument.

This is the same syllogistic structure as, for example,
1. If you kill someone, you get the death penalty under criminal law.
2. Mr. X killed someone.
3. Therefore, Mr. X gets the death penalty under criminal law.
Therefore, it has an

affinity for the legal-technical domain. In this pattern, the conclusion is not stated at the beginning, but

actually, the conclusion is already decided at the start. For creators who use Note, Note itself is an absolute, god-like existence (lol). Because if it disappeared, all your articles would be gone (lol). It presents the major premise right at the start: Note is an absolute existence/norm, and collaborative magazines are a feature of that Note.
Once it comes to this, there is no room for denial. All that remains is to argue in a set form. Therefore, it is important to firmly remember the truth (for Note creators, Note is absolute) and the norms.
You might feel very uncomfortable (?) because the major premise is Note, but this is

the "Quran" in Iran. Therefore, I think
the preservation of truth and the observance of norms is also an important value. It is logic based on that value. And the biggest feature was that the final conclusion is concluded with

either "a proverb, a line of poetry, or thanks to God". This was incredibly difficult because I don't have that kind of cultural foundation myself. It is difficult without an absolute pillar at a faith-based level, but from the value of
preserving truth and upholding norms, I was able to accept that this is actually a natural flow in line with a cultural foundation.

This is also one form of logical thinking.

Phase 4 (Japanese-style "Kansoubun" (reflection essay) / Social domain)

This was written with the image of a Japanese-style reflection essay.

What a reflection essay values most is, frankly, whether it can evoke empathy.
The form of inference is inference through empathy.

It is the most uncertain, and it makes you wonder if you can even call it logical. But, society cannot function without the good intentions of individuals based on the idea of "altruism" (of course, that alone is not enough). This is even more true in an uncertain society facing the VUCA era. If that forms morality, then if empathy among members creates a common understanding and is convincing, logical thinking aimed at empathy can also hold up is the feeling.
Therefore, it can be said that it has an affinity for the social domain.

This reflection essay seems to be unique to Japan.
Its characteristic lies in incorporating the writer's experience and unfolding in the flow of reflections on the experience, growth from there, and future mindset.
For example, even if a counterargument is included, a reflection essay shows consideration for the opposing view (like, "I certainly understand what the opposing view is saying. But... I think this way").
In terms of appearance, it might look like it's not logic and seems naive, but if you think about it, it's a possible structure as long as it's not illogical, and stating one's own opinion while showing consideration for the opposing view and searching for points of empathy is truly Japanese (different from the French style).
At the business level, the American style is mainstream, but in an uncertain era where definitive content doesn't lead to conclusions, I feel that this empathy-based style might also be surprisingly useful.

Actually, at the comment stage yesterday, MikataDai-san told me that lion seems like Phase 4. I couldn't help but laugh when I saw this comment lol (by the way, Phase 1 to Phase 4 are all lion's original text).

Honestly, I am aware that my writing style is a very ambiguous Japanese-style reflection essay close to Phase 4 lol.

But I also feel that there are times when I write with the ideas of Phase 1 to Phase 3. Each has its own characteristics, and if it doesn't match what the reader is looking for, it causes unnecessary conflict.
However, in my case, I feel it is true that Note's basic style is to emphasize empathy. And I also think that if I can use the styles of Phase 1 to Phase 3 depending on the time and situation, the freedom of expression will increase significantly.

Summary

It has become the longest ever, partly due to long quotes.

Finally, what can be said from the above examination? That is the quote at the beginning.

We are saying that “we can deploy logical thinking by changing its form according to the purpose.” Substantive logic is, in fact, developed based on an initial value choice and its corresponding purpose.
Regarding the draft mentioned earlier,whether it is the “pro-collaborative magazine group,” the “anti-collaborative magazine group,” or the “the question itself is wrong group,” various people are making various claims, but in reality, there is an initial value that serves as the purpose, and depending on that purpose, all of these are logics that can hold true.

So, this book is a recommended read for 2024 that will make you slightly more aware of the bold conclusion that logical thinking can be adapted to different writing styles.

Huh? You’re asking if you should participate in the collaborative magazine after all?
Well, let’s see. I hope to engage with the collaborative magazine in my own way and become able to write articles that remain in everyone’s hearts, and I would love to read the wonderful articles that are born when you all engage with the collaborative magazine in your own ways (a Japanese-style people-pleaser approach).


With that said, I would like to express my gratitude for you sticking with such a long, rambling piece, and “Make today the best day ever.”