Syllogism

Prompt:

Any country that is not ready to host a world event by the time it begins should be ashamed.

Brazil is not ready to host the World Cup

Therefore, Brazil should be ashamed.

Before responding to the prompt, it is important to have a brief explanation on what the World Cup is and also to understand some key terms that are crucial to the answer of this syllogism. The World Cup is an event by FIFA (Féderation Internationale de Football Association) that happens every four years. The last one was in 2010 in South Africa, and this year, it will be hosted by Brazil. There are 32 teams divided into 8 groups of 4, where the top two in each group advances to the round of 16, then 8 to the quarterfinals, 4 to the semi, and two to the final. Just to have an idea, the World Cup is the second most viewed event in the world, only loosing to the Super Bowl (American Football).  Brazil has 5 championships, and soccer is the most important sport in the country. Now let’s get straight to the point. A huge discussion is going on whether Brazil is ready or not to host the World Cup, and even worse, if the country’s internal problems (involving the huge corruption of the politics and others) will negatively impact the event as a whole. But in order to answer the syllogism above, we must first determine what two words mean. The first one is ready. Is Brazil being ready means that all the stadiums are ready or both the stadiums and the whole infrastructure are ready? This is certainly a huge deal because Brazil may be ready in one category and not ready in another. The second word is ashamed. To what extent should Brazil be ashamed? Does it mean ashamed not to have enough infrastructure and public needs? Or does it mean to be ashamed of the politics being involved and the corruption between them. Or even both… These two words are key, so I will write about the two different approaches in each one of them.

The first one is how much Brazil is ready. If we take in consideration only the stadiums, Brazil is ready. According to an article in Terra, a Brazilian site, 6 stadiums are still not 100%, but 5 of them are in their final touches. So eventually, Brazil will get all of its stadiums ready. But on the other hand, if we use the word “ready” to mean that the whole project is ready, then Brazil is definitely not ready. As we know, the public transportation suffers major problems (the traffic is chaotic, the metro stations are not ready and the buses are often overpopulated), as well as the airports (some terminals are not ready and there are too many flights for too little terminals) and the public hospitals (which is definitely terrible).  The second word is the word ashamed. As mentioned in paragraph one, I truly believe that Brazil should be ashamed in both cases. Brazil has not enough infrastructures to host the world cup, as stated in the previous point.  And even worse, the corruption here is simply insane. According to an article in Estadão, FIFA said in 2007, when Brazil was nominated to be host in 2014, that the stadiums would only be worth about R$ 2.6 billion (about $1.1 Billion). In this article published in January 27^th of this year, it states that the costs of the stadiums are already R$8.9 Billion. The price is already more than three times greater than what FIFA promised in 2007.

      But these are only pre-World Cup thoughts and emotions. When the event occurs, the problems faced before it will be forgotten. Not forever, but only during the event. Let’s face it, soccer is the most practiced and adored sport in Brazil, so the people will definitely go to the stadium to cheer for the “seleção”. It is simple: our passion will overcome our problems. Despite the corruption and the negative internal problems in the country, the people will go to the stadium and they will enjoy the World Cup. So, going back to the syllogism, Brazil is somewhat ready to host the World Cup, but it should be ashamed because of corruption and lack of infrastructure in the country.

Websites Used:
1. http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/esportes,custo-dos-estadios-da-copa-do-mundo-ja-chega-a-r-8-9-bilhoes,1123266,0.htm
2. http://esportes.terra.com.br/futebol/copa-2014/cem-dias-para-a-copa-veja-como-estao-os-12-estadios,daa58246a4584410VgnVCM4000009bcceb0aRCRD.html

Any country that is not ready to host a world event by the time it begins should be
ashamed.

Brazil is not ready to host the World Cup

Therefore, Brazil should be ashamed.

When you think of the World Cup, you think of a lot
of people going into your country. When these people go into your country, the
expectations are high. In Brazil, nothing is different. Since the news that
Brazil was going to host the World Cup this year, high expectations were put
into the country in terms of investment in projects and the execution of these
same projects.

First of all, when you think of shame, what type of
shame? Is it the shame that you can’t stand it and you will leave the country
once the World Cup starts or is the type of shame where you feel ashamed of the
current situation but will still stay in the country and/or protest against
this event?

Well, in this case, it includes both. Both types of
shame are acceptable, meaning the argument is valid, and the analogy is perfect
in itself. There are reasons to prove that people are ashamed of Brazil’s
current situation. The syllogism above is correct because not only me, but all
Brazilians are ashamed because we are not ready to host the World Cup. One
example that proves that Brazil is not ready is that all stadiums should have
been ready by December 2013. However, we do not see this. There are still 6
stadiums to be concluded, and the FIFA organization is already beginning to say
that one stadium (the one in Curitiba) will not be ready for the World Cup. Not
only this, but the infrastructure reforms that were promised to be invested are
late. Airports are still being re-modulated, roads are being constructed, and,
most importantly, the public security is still improving. Imagine if tourists
come to Brazil and this lack of security is still evident? Finally, according
to Estadão, in an article publicated in January 27,2014, 8.9 billion reais was
spent on stadiums, and only 2.9 billion was spent in infrastructure. When
Brazil was appointed as host in 2007, the government promised to spend the
money the way around, with 8.9 billion reais in infrastructure and only 2.1
billion in stadiums. This is probably the best example that proves this
syllogism to be correct as a whole. However, is it totally correct?

The second thing to put in mind about this syllogism
is that does this “Brazil” include all Brazilians? It inducts us to think that
it does include all Brazilians, which is incorrect. Not all Brazilians are
ashamed that Brazil isn’t ready. A great example is the politicians. They are
not ashamed of their own country, and yes, are interested if their own personal
belongings (mainly money) is in order. Politicians are Brazilians right? Yet,
they are definitely not ashamed. It is ironic because they are the ultimate
responsible for Brazil’s situation, and still, they have no shame in
themselves.

Another thing to put into question is what “ready”
is? Does it mean to be totally ready or only the stadiums? If it means to be
totally ready, then Brazil will not be ready because of the reasons above.
However, if it means that some things are ready, than Brazil is ready in this
case. Something many people don’t know is that in way or the other, the
stadiums are going to be ready for the World Cup. If they are not to be ready,
then there will be no World Cup… But wait: it is too close to the actual event
for the host to change. In other words, either it is Brazil or we won’t have a
World Cup this year. And FIFA doesn’t want that. FIFA wants to continue to keep
this fake “good” image associated with them. So they will try in every manner
to make this happen, either through making tickets more expensive or making the
Brazilian government impose higher taxes. Also, if Brazil has the stadiums,
many of the other things that are more important (public health, safety,
transportation and education) will be forgotten in some matter. Sure, it will
be a huge chaos. But that is part of a country that is not fully ready to host
an important event. FIFA thinks that if there are stadiums, then the rest won’t
matter.
The final thing to put in mind is that “any country that is not ready should be ashamed”. South Africa, for example, was not ready, yet, they were not ashamed. They are extremely passionate about their country, and, at no point, they felt ashamed. It is a

huge honor to host an important and major world event like the World Cup. In
this case, the syllogism is wrong.
           In other words, the syllogism is half wrong half right. However, for it to be correct, all the premises and arguments have to be correct. So, in other words, this syllogism is not

correct.

Syllogisms etc.

All heroes deserve freedom.

Edward Snowden is a hero.

Therefore Edward Snowden deserves freedom.

Assuming both premises are true, this statement is valid. Now, is it sound?

Language is the first barrier to be tackled. What defines a hero? Where should one look for such definition? Since dictionaries vary, shall we use the most "reliable" one, perhaps the Merriam Webster Dictionary? If, if we were to use its formal definition, a hero would be "a person who is admired for great or brave acts or fine qualities" (Merriam Webster). Here we stumble upon another language barrier, what defines a great act or a fine quality? Such subjective terms call us to look into different cultural values and judgements of what makes a "hero", which will be discussed later on.

The next term to be defined is "freedom". Merriam Webster defines it as "the quality or state of being free". Things are further complicated when one searches for the definition of free, which can mean (1) "having the legal and political rights of a citizen", (2) "choosing or capable of choosing for itself", or (3) "not physically held by something". Which one of these should we use? All three? Considering the political context behind Snowden's story, should only the first definition be relevant? What if a so called "hero" turned himself in to the authorities and was put in jail, giving himself the freedom of choosing to have one of his unalienable rights removed (liberty)? Is he free or not? Let's take this to another level. I'm doing this assignment by choice. But then again, I'm not. I do the work assigned because I need to get good grades. I need good grades in order to be accepted into a decent university, which will ensure a stable and comfortable future where I will be able to survive on my own. Today I wish I hadn't woken up so early. I wish I did not have to take an economics test tomorrow. I also wish I could skip assembly without the fear of being caught. People sometimes wish they could die; the choice of being born is given to none. Thus, to what extent are we free? Is not being physically restrained by shackles or bars, but still trapped in the never ending cycle of responsibilities, anxieties and time, enough? If not, freedom is an illusion. We are subject to time and much greater forces infinitely beyond our control. If you want to take it to an existentialist level, we can begin questioning the existence of freedom of choice and the effects of our decisions in our lives.

But this will lead endless talking and perhaps to some unwanted conclusions as well, thus, taking the context of the argument in consideration, let us assume that the definition of freedom is associated with the granting of political rights and the lack of physical restraints. Remember, we are only human; it is impossible to consider everything. Our brains work by selecting information and ignoring the rest, something that cannot be helped.

Now, we question, (1) is Snowden a hero? And (2) do heroes really deserve freedom?

A highly controversial figure, Snowden has been praised by many as a whistleblower and hero, and condemned by others as a traitor. Ask an average Graded student, he/she will probably tell you he's a hero. Ask a hardcore republican, he/she will most likely disagree. Polls have shown that about 3/4 of the American population, after hearing about the NSA surveillance programs, believe the US government has gone too far. Is what the majority believes what one should consider to be true? As of 30 years ago (or even less), the opinions of the majority of the western population regarding religion, race, and sexuality were very, very different as to what the majority believes in today.
According to the "hero" definition, Snowden's action would have to be "great or brave" and he'd have to have "fine qualities". For the sake of time, let us assume that these two qualities are the necessary conditions for a hero. We could create another TOK blog to simply discuss its definition, but since we do not have time for this, we will have to work with such givens. Due to the vagueness of such terms, almost anyone can call him a hero or deny any heroic qualities in him. The dictionary's definition of brave is to "show no fear; not be afraid". But showing is very different than being. Is this an and/or situation, where to be brave, one would have to show no fear or not be afraid? If so, one could claim Snowden is/was a brave man. Whether his actions were noble or hateful is irrelevant. Defying the most powerful government in the world and risk everything to be persecuted by the American police requires a lot of courage. Thus, the first half of the hero criteria has been covered. Now what of the "fine qualities"? To some, Snowden is a whistleblower who deserves recognition, to others, he is simply a traitor. Being the former is far from a "fine quality", but what if Snowden had other fine qualities, such as being a great listener? Would that still allow us to classify him as a hero, or would the existence of any not so fine qualities immediately disqualify him? Thus, the question is not is Snowden a hero? It is to whom is he a hero? Due to the subjectivity of its meaning and the controversy around this figure, there will never be a true answer, no matter what the majority might believe in.

Do heroes deserve freedom? Hitler was a hero to many during his time (and still is). If a hero was a hero the same way a hydrogen atom is a hydrogen atom, once you count the number of protons and electrons, there is no denying it (since having one proton and one electron is the definition of a hydrogen atom), then we could consider his deserving of freedom. But because a universal hero does not exist, and the human population will probably never reach a consensus as to what makes one, there is no way to confirm this statement.

But let us assume there was a general consensus on Snowden's bravery and fine qualities. With situations as these, where there is no formal definition or scientific proof necessary, notice how we usually choose to go with the opinion of the majority in order to find the "truth". This, of course, can be misleading and is shaped by various cultural factors. Language itself is shaped by cultural factors. But back to Snowden. Assuming he was a hero, would he deserve freedom? According to the US constitution, all men are born with unalienable rights, that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is not a fact. It is not true in the same way photosynthesis is true. Someone came up with this idea of "unalienable rights", and most of western culture embraced it. Thus, we would have to rephrase this statement to: According to western ideals/culture/beliefs, all men are born with alienable rights, that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A human hero is a human, and therefore, according to western ideals, he is born with alienable rights. That would be enough to prove that a hero "deserves" freedom, for it is a right granted to him/her. BUT. Oh God, another but. What about prisoners who had their liberty taken away from them? What about capital punishment? What about sadomasochist psychopaths who need to hurt others in order to be "happy"? OK, perhaps I went too far, since prisoners are in prison and are sentenced to capital punishment for removing those rights from others, an eye for an eye as Hammurabi would say. But heroes, are, well, heroic. They are attributed with admirable qualities and work for the greater good. Thus, most of us would agree that nice people who save lives probably do not deserve to have their hands bound and rights removed. There is no way to formally prove this, and thus, we work with what is generally accepted by most.

And this is where Snowden comes in. To some, he is a traitor who must be detained. To others, he is a hero. Because of language and varying opinions, beliefs, and interpretations, the truth behind these premises changes from one person to the other. There is no way this will ever be SOUND. Just like anything else, really. Language and its different interpretations, in this case, will forever be a obstacle.

Notice how many assumptions I had to make to reach this conclusion. When opinions vary, could we consider the predominant belief as "more true"?

To me, the second premise is definitely true. I know this based from what I have heard, read and watched in the news. I also know this because I was raised in a culture where open mindedness, beliefs in privacy and citizen's rights and the democratic party have always prevailed. The first premise is still being debated within myself, for a hero can also be a murderer, an idiot, or a psychopath, or all three. I don't think I'm ready for such an assertive "all" statement yet.

The argument:

All heroes deserve freedom.

Edward Snowden is a hero.

Therefore Edward Snowden deserves freedom.

The analysis:

Firstly, why do all heroes deserve freedom? What makes a hero? What if, part of the reason a hero is a hero is because he sacrifices his right to freedom? Why do all heroes deserve freedom, but not all humans deserve freedom? I begin this analysis by assuming that freedom here means freedom of body and mind. I also have to define freedom, and make a philosophical argument over whether or not Edward Snowden deserves to suffer in the present for action he committed in the past, and weather he can be judged as the same person before and after his actions. Purely as a syllogism, the argument is logical, and the conclusion necessarily follows. Also, note that the syllogism uses the term "deserve" so that any conflict with literal U.S. law will have no effect on its validity. Despite that, the premises themselves remain so subjective that any real world application fails entirely. Take, for example, the term hero. As soon as one person wants a state of events that another person disagrees with, it becomes impossible to please both of them simultaneously. We can simplify the dilemma, and make the happiness of each dependent entirely on the state of events, so that change will please the first character, and displease the second, and vice versa. Say some third character greatly facilitates the change so desired by the first character. In becoming the first character's hero, he has ruined, essentially, the life of the second character. The same is true of most real world dilemmas that put people against one another; pleasing one side will harm the other. Certainly, there are those who find Snowden's actions laudable, but just as certainly there are others who saw the government's surveillance program as the only way of protecting American citizens against the many threats of the modern world, whose livelihood might have hinged entirely on the functioning of that surveillance system. So is our definition of heroism dependant entirely on viewpoint? Or is there some heroic quality that objects against injustice in any scenario? Perhaps, it is neither, and our notion of heroism is entirely utilitarian; that if more people find surveillance wrong than people who support it, Snowden is a hero. Either way, the meaning of the most vital term in either premise is based almost entirely on personal knowledge. The zone of exchange in this case becomes a zone of conflict, as the issue of Snowden's guilt or heroism is so very polemic. As a result, such a seemingly arbitrary statement immediately triggers a doubt reaction. Sure, the syllogism is valid and the logic is sound. But it is erroneous to try to apply such rhetorical absolutes to an issue that is so morally complicated. And what is Snowden's position within our system of laws? Our laws seem to function on the assurance that when someone commits a crime, they give up the responsibility of freedom. Essentially, they are unable to commit that crime again, and an "error" is removed from society. Could Snowden possibly expose the government twice over the same issue? How could his "crime" be committed again? At this point, the damage is done. The U.S. recoups nothing by imprisoning Snowden, so what would imprisonment serve for? A show of power, surely. But depending on the truth of the above syllogism, that show could be either tyrannical or just.

Analyze and evaluate one of the following arguments. To what extent is it sound (true premises, valid form)? Are you inclined to accept this argument? In your discussion, use ToK language and concepts, including the following:

language as a way of knowing

perception as a way of knowing

necessary and sufficient conditions

fallacies

syllogisms

deduction

induction

analogy

justified true belief

personal knowledge/ shared knowledge and the zone of exchange

evaluating source, statement, and self

truth checks

the process for claims evaluation I showed you, involving “accept” or “doubt response

measuring your degree of certainty on the probability truth scale if appropriate.

Any country that is not ready to host a world event by the time it begins should be ashamed.

Brazil is not ready to host the World Cup

Therefore, Brazil should be ashamed.

All heroes deserve freedom.

Edward Snowden is a hero.

Therefore Edward Snowden deserves freedom.

If people vote to secede, they should be allowed to.

Crimeans have voted to secede.

Therefore they should be allowed to.

The best film ever made is either Citizen Kane or Grand Illusion

The best film ever made is Citizen Kane

Therefore Grand Illusion is not the best film ever made.

Climate change may cause extreme weather events.

The summer of 2014 was the hottest summer on record in São Paulo.

The winter of 2014 was the coldest ever on record in many parts of the US.

Therefore, climate change is responsible for the trees down in my Sao Paulo neighborhood and the record school closings in the US.

People should take advantage of every experience life offers.

Drinking alcohol is an experience

Maria is a person

Therefore Maria should drink alcohol.

If a country is attacked, its allies have to defend it.

Russia is allied to Serbia, and Serbia was invaded by Austria-Hungary in 1914.

Therefore Russia had to declare war on Austria-Hungary

If a ruler does not respect the rights of its people, the people should overthrow the ruler

Louis XVI did not respect the rights of the French people

Therefore the people of France were right to overthrown the monarchy of Louis XVI

Why?

I recently watched a video of comedian Louis C.K. talking about his young daughter who continuously asks “why?” to whatever response her father gives her. She simply asked, “Why can’t we go outside today?” He answered, “Because it’s raining.” An easy enough answer for an easy enough question, right? No. After being asked why over and over again, he realizes that he doesn’t really know why things are the way they are and his responses become less and less legitimate. By the end, he is babbling about how “some things are and some things are not.” Why? “Because something that is not can’t be!” Huh?

It is crazy how we seem to accept whatever response given to us. When we are young and just starting to understand the world, we are curious so it is easy to ask “why?” over and over again until we fully understand. But to do this with everything that is told to us would be exhausting, so we begin to accept anything. Louis C.K. answered her child in the easiest way possible because he wasn’t curious. Is this something that comes with age? It is sad that over the years we become less and less interested about the world. Our minds get filled with more and more strange and abstract concepts that we accept simply because it is “common knowledge” and if no one else is rejecting it, why should you?

Perhaps that’s why the world seemed like such a mysterious place when we were young. Let’s be honest. The world doesn’t make sense. So many things are still unanswered. Is there a God? Is the big bang theory true? If not, how did we come to be? How is it that everything is made of atoms that we can’t even see? Why can’t I see any?! Are all thumbs the same? How do we know? Have we checked every thumb in the world?

If someone were to attempt to answer a simple question like “why is the sky blue?” chances are that they will answer it easily and simply. However, if one is to ask you “why?” over and over again to your “simple” answer, it is easy to eventually realize that you have no idea why. Why are some things true and some things false? Who said so?

Knowledge is a crazy concept. How can we ever be sure that what we know is true? And if we’re not sure, can it really be considered knowledge? For example, the sky is blue. Is it really? It has been proven that different animals see things in different colors, but to us it is blue. How can that be knowledge if we don’t really know 100 percent that the sky is actually blue?

We live in a society where we are forced to go to school to learn. Despite the constant frustrations, stress, anxiety, and sleep deprivation, I sometimes sort of like school. But what is the point if we aren’t going to ask why? I believe that a child’s mind holds the best kind of thinking; a free and open way of seeing the world that is not foolish enough to accept just anything.

Lost in the “why” questions thrown at him, Louis C.K. eventually says that he doesn’t know because he’s dumb and he’s dumb because he didn’t pay attention in high school and was high all the time. This rises yet another question. Is school what makes us knowledgeable? Also, what is stronger, knowledge that is told to us or knowledge that is gained by experience? I believe that to be truly knowledgeable, we can’t just accept anything and everything that is thrown at us. If we truly want to know the truth about something, we have to answer any and all “why” questions.

Forgive the various questions, but I believe that a wild concept like knowledge can’t be addressed simply. I don’t have all the answers.

Overcoming Fear

During the break, I went to California to skateboard and snowboard in Los Angeles and South Lake Tahoe, which caused me to keep my body active during most of the time. And something I pondered a lot was if there was anyway to overcome fear. As a snowboarder, you have to keep pushing yourself in order to learn and land new skills and tricks. However, how good you get only depends on how much you are willing to put your body at risk, and I came to realize that fear is the principal factor that ultimately impedes you to try new things. Fear of getting hurt or fracturing a bone. When I went snowboarding last year in Canada, I tried to overcome this fear as I tried to land new trick but ended up dislocating my left shoulder. And during this Winter break, I was afraid to get injured again, so I concluded that the more knowledge you build upon experiences, the greater your fear, since you're more aware of the consequences. Though to overcome this fear, you must be confident that you can make it.