Chaim Perelman writes: “Dialectical reasoning presupposes premises which are constituted by generally accepted opinions. The generally accepted premises are those ‘which are accepted by everyone or by the majority or by the philosophers – i.e., by all, or by the majority, or by the most notable and illustrious of them” (436).

I used to drink tons and tons of milk growing up. Now, I can’t touch the stuff. To be an American in the nineties was celestial, now, dual-citizenship mentality is sprouting up all over the country. Butter used to be good a long time ago, margarine came along and made butter bad. Then we learned about trans-fats and margarine became the bad guy. What are we gonna cook with? Let’s make butter good again! I won’t even go into the whole carbohydrate debacle.

The fact that analytic reasoning and dialectic reasoning were split apart stems from the need for good vs. evil. The logical contingent treats the dialectics with disdain. The dialectics think their “logical” counterparts to be too rigid, unimaginative, and impersonal. But, is it not accurate to say that dialectic wouldn’t be what it is without formal logic, and vice versa? There is an inherent logic that is present when engaged in dialectic, and no truth based in logic is ever impregnable to popular opinion. Analytic reasoning is the basis of formal logic. Logic is the science of reasoning. Analysis consists of investigation, study, scrutiny, inquiry, interpretation, and review. The opinions (or truth, if you will) that are derived from this stuff are generally representative of the “illustrious” class, the doctors, judges, politicians, etc. who form the elite of the elite. Dialectic reasoning is the art of investigating the truth of opinions, or testing the truth by discussion. The truth here is based on popular opinion, which is derived by individual experience. Perelman writes, “An argument is never capable of procuring self-evidence” (439).

In Mythologies, Roland Barthes writes: “To instill into the Established Order the complacent portrayal of its drawbacks has nowadays become a paradoxical but incontrovertible means of exalting it” (41). Doctors say coffee is bad, we believe them. After all, they have evidence to back it up – evidence that was obtained through logical means, the closest thing we have to absolute truth, if you will. Now doctors say coffee is good, so we believe them. I put soy milk in my coffee. I used to put milk in my coffee. Way back when, I took milk from my mom, because it was the order of the universe. But why, years later, am I content to take milk from a cow? Gross! Milk is defined as a white fluid secreted by female mammals for the nourishment of their young. Does this mean I’ll see a baby goat the next time I look in the mirror? And why do we call it soy milk? Can milk be extracted from a leguminous plant? Would I so willingly pour “soy oil” into my coffee each morning? Here’s the point: Struggle with knowledge is intrinsic to the human condition. Contradiction, along with change, is the “only” constant. If our environment is too perfect, too sterile, we shut down. We reject it like a body rejects a bad liver. The two just don’t fit. It’s like putting a square block into a circular hole. Woman is mortal. Her enjoyment in waking up each morning is derived by the need to go to sleep each night. She speeds up to slow down. She gives birth and is a witness to death. She questions in order to understand. Now, the really fun question is, how does money get all mixed up in this?

---