In this blog post, we’ll explore the relationship between madness and logic based on ‘Logicomics’ and examine how human psychology and behavior are connected.
In everyday life, the term “madness” often brings to mind mental illness or an irrational state. In contrast, logic is considered one of the most rational fields among existing academic disciplines. Therefore, the idea that there is a correlation between madness and logic is difficult to accept at first glance. However, ‘Logicomix’ explains the relationship between madness and logic—two concepts that appear to be polar opposites. The correlation between madness and logic discussed here has two meanings. One is the case where a person with madness pursues the discipline of logic, and the other is the case where a person who explores logic becomes mad. ‘Logicomix’ presents the perspective that, of these two, it is a person’s madness that drives them to pursue logic. However, it is not appropriate to conclude that madness always leads to the pursuit of logic in matters involving human psychology, such as madness itself.
This perspective is also linked to the core message conveyed by ‘Logicomix’. The work demonstrates that when an individual must choose a specific course of action in a given situation, logical thinking alone cannot derive a single correct answer or absolute truth applicable to everyone. Since an individual’s judgment is influenced by a variety of factors—such as their psychology, values, and experiences—it is impossible to explain every case through logic alone. This point can be directly applied to the correlation between madness and logic. Since madness is also a concept that reflects an individual’s psychology and values, it is inappropriate to generalize the relationship between madness and logic into a single conclusion. Depending on the individual, madness may lead to logic, or conversely, logic may lead to madness. Let us now examine the meanings of madness and logic and consider the correlation between these two concepts.
First, let’s examine the meanings of madness and logic as discussed in ‘Logicomics’. The madness referred to here is not mental illness in the everyday sense, but rather a tendency to try to escape uncertainty and to become overly fixated on certainty and rationality. Here, certainty refers to a state in which one can clearly distinguish between true and false regarding a given proposition, while rationality means acting based on valid grounds and rational judgment in a given situation.
Regarding logic, the work cites Aristotle’s definition: “Logic is new and necessary inference.” This definition captures the meaning of logic as presented in the work. Here, “new” means discovering a fact previously unknown, and “necessary” means that, given certain conditions, the result is inevitably determined. Therefore, logic can be described as a discipline based on certainty and rationality.
Furthermore, ‘Logicomix’ explains madness and logic in a different way. In the work, a logician is likened to a cartographer who creates a map that reflects reality, while madness is defined as a state in which one confuses reality with the map. Logic involves the process of simplifying reality to a certain extent in order to explain it logically. This process is likened to the work of mapmaking. In contrast, madness refers to a state in which one believes that a map created by simplifying reality is reality itself.
Based on these concepts of madness and logic, let’s examine the correlation between the two. First, there is the argument that madness drives the pursuit of logic. This can be understood relatively easily by examining the definitions of madness and logic. Madness is a tendency to obsess over certainty and rationality, and logic is precisely the discipline founded on such certainty and rationality. Therefore, for a person who pursues certainty and rationality, choosing logic—the discipline that most faithfully embodies these qualities—can be a natural process of fulfilling their own desires. In other words, a person driven by madness pursuing logic can be seen as a means of addressing their inner desires.
Conversely, one might also consider the argument that logic leads people to madness. Logic is a discipline that constantly derives new conclusions based on the premises of certainty and rationality. If this way of thinking is repeated over a long period, there is a possibility that a tendency to excessively pursue certainty and rationality will develop even in daily life. From this perspective, the argument that logic can lead a person to madness is also sufficiently persuasive. Ultimately, if examined solely on a conceptual level, both relationships are meaningful. Therefore, to reach a more valid conclusion, it is necessary to compare these two relationships through actual cases rather than concepts.
Examining these relationships through examples means verifying whether there are cases that support each of the two correlations. In other words, if there are cases where madness leads to logic but no cases where logic leads to madness, then we can conclude that madness leads to logic. Conversely, if there are only cases where logic leads to madness, then we can say that logic drives people to madness.
In ‘Logicomix’, Bertrand Russell’s proof of 1+1=2 is presented as a representative example illustrating the relationship between madness and logic. Russell is famous for having developed a vast body of arguments to rigorously prove that 1+1=2. This example can be interpreted in both directions regarding the relationship between madness and logic.
First, one could interpret Russell’s madness—that is, his intense obsession with certainty—as having led him to attempt to prove even a simple equation like 1+1=2 through an extremely lengthy process. Russell grew up under strict discipline, which was enforced according to unilateral standards set by his grandmother. In this environment, Russell came to seek ever greater rationality and certainty, and it can be argued that this tendency manifested as madness in his life. Ultimately, it is possible to interpret that this madness led him to devote an enormous amount of time and effort even to explaining a very simple fact.
Conversely, it can also be interpreted that he behaved this way due to the nature of logic, the field he studied throughout his life. As we have seen earlier, logic is a discipline that pursues certainty and rationality. Given that Russell had studied this discipline for so long, it is also possible to view his behavior as an attempt to completely prove even the most basic proposition—that 1+1=2.
‘Logicomix’ presents the former interpretation as more persuasive but does not sufficiently explain its basis. No clear argument is provided as to why the latter interpretation is inappropriate or why the former is more valid. As such, it is difficult to conclusively determine which comes first—madness or logic—based on a single case. Since both interpretations are possible even for a single case, it is not easy to explain the correlation between madness and logic in only one direction.
Therefore, it is necessary to synthesize multiple cases to examine which of the two relationships occurs more frequently. In other words, it is also possible to approach the relationship between madness and logic from a probabilistic perspective.
To approach this from a probabilistic perspective, it is necessary to examine all possible cases corresponding to each relationship. First, from the perspective of moving from madness to logic, we can consider the following cases: a person with madness studying logic; a person without madness studying logic; a person with madness not studying logic; and a person without madness not studying logic. Since we are comparing the cases leading from madness to logic and those leading from logic to madness, we must examine how many people with madness actually study logic.
Conversely, from the perspective starting with logic, we examine how many people who study logic end up becoming insane. However, there is an important precondition here: a person must have been sane before studying logic and must subsequently become insane. This is because if a person was already insane, we cannot say that the insanity was caused by logic.
For example, let’s reconsider the case of Russell proving that 1+1=2. One could interpret that, as a result of constantly encountering certainty and rationality while studying logic, Russell was driven to attempt a rigorous proof that 1+1=2. However, for this interpretation to hold, it must be presupposed that Russell did not possess an obsession with certainty and rationality—that is, madness—before studying logic. Only when this condition is met can one argue that logic produced madness.
This前提 leads to a more comprehensive issue: the question of which takes precedence—human inner psychology or human behavior. The concepts of madness and logic examined so far can be understood as symbolizing human inner psychology and human behavior, respectively.
If the relationship that madness leads to logic holds true, it implies that human inner psychology drives human behavior. Conversely, if logic leads to madness, it can be interpreted to mean that human behavior shapes human inner psychology. However, the prerequisite mentioned earlier must also apply here. In other words, it must be confirmed that a person who was not previously mad became mad through logic.
This implies that even when examining whether human behavior shapes human inner psychology, one must first verify the existing inner psychology. In other words, to discuss which comes first—a person’s inner psychology or their actions—one must always consider the inner psychology first.
Therefore, the most important aspect of examining the correlation between madness and logic is understanding a person’s inner psychology. It is not easy to definitively determine whether madness leads to logic or logic leads to madness, and in fact, that question itself is not the most important issue. Rather, what this discussion reveals is that when understanding the relationship between madness and logic—and, by extension, the relationship between human inner psychology and human behavior—human inner psychology must take precedence.
In other words, to understand why a person chose a particular course of action in a specific situation, it is not enough to examine only the logical thought process. Only by understanding the inner psychology and values of the person who made that choice can we properly explain that action.
The ultimate conclusion drawn here is also linked to the core message conveyed by ‘Logicomics’. What matters in human behavior is not a logical truth or “correct answer” that applies uniformly to every situation, but rather judgments made based on the inner psychology and values that differ from person to person. The fact that human behavior is determined by an individual’s inner psychology lends credibility to the argument that madness drives the pursuit of logic. In this context, ‘Logicomix’ also explains that madness drives the pursuit of logic.
However, an individual’s inner psychology is not composed of just one element—madness. Therefore, it is inappropriate to represent an individual’s inner psychology with a single concept—madness—and to generalize that this madness drives the pursuit of logic, which is a human activity. Human inner psychology is highly complex and cannot be fully explained by a single concept. In this regard, Wittgenstein’s statement—“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”—which lies at the heart of ‘Logicomix’, holds significant meaning. It implies that domains which cannot be definitively stated in a single proposition—such as an individual’s inner psychology—should not be generalized as if they were absolute truths. Therefore, it is also inappropriate to assert that madness necessarily leads a person to logic.
Thus far, we have examined these two concepts to understand the correlation between madness and logic. We have summarized the concepts of madness and logic, applied them to their correlation, and analyzed that relationship through real-world examples. Through this process, we have come to understand that madness and logic are concepts symbolizing human inner psychology and human behavior, respectively, and we have confirmed that human inner psychology must always be considered first when seeking to understand human behavior.
Ultimately, human behavior can manifest in various ways depending on a person’s inner psychology. Therefore, rather than accepting the case of a specific individual as a universal truth applicable to everyone, we need to adopt an attitude that seeks to understand how each person’s psychology and values influence their behavior.
