#Business Analogy 005 - The Last Day - Soup of the Soup of the Duck - Reductio Ad Absurdum / Implosion - Malicious Compliance
Pushing an argument or logic to its limits to prove that it is absurd & then refute it. Deliberately accelerating the collapse of a system accelerated sabotage of system through malicious compliance.
INTRODUCTION
ABSURD LOGIC
When you find someone adding a tiny drop of poison to claim that the poisonous fruits resulting from the droplets of poison are still sweet.
Any attempt to deny the faulty logic would result in an argument and denial. A better approach would be to encourage the poisoner to add huge tanks full of poison, push the poison to the limits, and make the death swift.
Deliberately increasing the potency of a poisonous logic beyond its limits would quickly cause poisoning, and prove once and for all, rather than wait for generations for the slow-dripping poison to take effect.
This kind of deliberate acceleration of evil to topple the evil system and bring the system to its knees in a desperate attempt to minimize suffering is called malicious compliance. We will deal with this kind of pushing irrationality to its limits to prove its absurdity is reductio ad absurdum.
This approach is as old as logic itself, and the Greeks provide a great anecdote.
ANECDOTE
FEATHERLESS BI-PED
According to Diogenes Laërtius’ third-century Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers, Plato was applauded for his definition of man as a featherless biped, so Diogenes the Cynic “plucked the feathers from a cock, brought it to Plato’s school, and said, ‘Here is Plato’s man.’ ”
In consequence of which, there was added to the definition, "having broad nails."
Diogenes’ other interesting anecdotes
To one who asked what was the proper time for lunch, he said, "If a rich man, when you will; if a poor man, when you can."
When asked about the origin of his epithet, cynic deriving from the Greek word for dog, Diogenes replied that it was given to him because he “fawns upon those who give him anything and barks at those who give him nothing.”
Diogenes simply found a way to push the logic beyond absurdity and also give a demonstration to show the absurdity of the definition of men as nothing but featherless bipeds, I think there is much more to a man than simply being a able to walk to two feet and not having feathers. Don’t you?
Let us look at a few more such instances where the characters were able to push the logic to absurdities using illustrious means.
SHORT STORY
DUCK SOUP
A kinsman came to see Nasrudin from the country and brought a duck. Nasrudin was grateful, had the bird cooked, and shared it with his guest.
Presently, another visitor arrived. He was a friend, as he said, ‘of the man who gave you the duck’. Nasrudin fed him as well.
This happened several times. Nasrudin’s home had become like a restaurant for out-of-town visitors.
Everyone was a friend at some removes of the original donor of the duck.
Finally, Nasrudin was exasperated.
One day, there was a knock at the door, and a stranger appeared. ‘I am the friend of the friend of the friend of the man who brought you the duck from the country,’ he said.
‘Come in,’ said Nasrudin.
They seated themselves at the table, and Nasrudin asked his wife to bring the soup.
When the guest tasted it, it seemed to be nothing more than warm water. ‘What sort of soup is this?’ he asked the Mulla.
‘That’, said Nasrudin, ‘is the soup of the soup of the soup of the duck.’
When something is diluted so much that it loses its original value or composition.
Here, Nasruddin pushes the logic to its limit. The logic at play is called if A is B and B is C and C is D, and so on… then D is Z. Nasruddin pushed the transitive property to its limits.
To the point of absurdity.
If a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend is still your friend, then the soup of the soup of the soup of the soup of the duck is water.
In either case, it appears that both Diagones and Nasruddin have accepted the logic, but then tried to show how absurd it would be. They did not try to protest or argue, they believe in the SHOW DON’T TELL approach that is extremely popular with writers.
Now let us see another such interesting show and tale, but this time from AKBAR & BIRBAL.
SHORT STORY
The Bet: Braving the Cold
Once on a cold winter day, Akbar and Birbal were walking by a lake.
Akbar stopped and put his finger into the freezing water and immediately took it out, saying, “I don’t think anyone can sustain a night in this cold water”.
Birbal took that as a challenge and said that he would find someone who could do it. Akbar promised a sum of 1000 gold coins to whoever could spend a night standing in the cold water of the lake. Soon, Birbal found a poor man who agreed to undertake the challenge for the 1000 gold coins.
Guarded by two royal guards, the poor man spent the entire night standing in the freezing water.
In the morning, the poor man was taken to court for the reward. On being asked by the king how he could stand in freezing water, the man replied, “My lord, I kept looking at a lamp that was burning at a distance, and spent my entire night looking at it”. On learning this, the emperor said, “This man is not worthy of the reward as he could manage to stand in the lake because he was getting warmth from the lamp”.
The poor man felt doomed and heartbroken. He reached out to Birbal for help. Birbal didn’t go to the court the next day. Akbar visited Birbal to find the reason. To his amusement, the King found Birbal sitting beside the fire with a pot hanging almost 6 feet above it.
On being inquired, Birbal said, “I am cooking khichadi, my lord”. Akbar started laughing and said that was impossible. Birbal said, “It is possible, my King. If a poor man can stay warm by simply looking at the lamp burning at a distance, I can cook this khichadi the same way.” Akbar understood Birbal’s point and rewarded the poor man for completing the challenge.
Pushing logic to its limits, sometimes beyond absurd limits, can expose the absurdity of the logic. Why is it not good to argue? Why is it preferred to show and tell?
Imagine Birbal arguing with the EMPEROR AKBAR, the result could be losing his head. Speaking truth to power is extremely dangerous, and you might lose your life and livelihood or both. Is it really worth losing your head for the sake of winning an argument? NO.
Instead, demonstrating the absurd logic with a great example works wonders.
CONCEPT
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM & REDUCTIO AD IMPLOSION
Reductio ad absurdum has two formats - the Satire version and the Formal Version.
Reductio Ad Absurdum is harmless and sometimes funny. But Reductio Ad Implosion causes the underlying system to break down, sometimes with devastating consequences.
The darker version of Reductio Ad Absurdum is its grey cousin, Reductio AD IMPLOSION.
Push the logic and accelerate the collapse of the system that runs with this logic faster by feeding it and eventually blowing it up.
Instead of fighting with socialism, which is an unending ordeal, the USA did the right thing by pushing the socialist states to bankruptcy and eventually blowing up the countries, for example USSR split into 13 pieces.
ACCELERATED SABOTAGE caused by MALICIOUS COMPLIANCE causes REDUCTIO AD IMPLOSION
COMIC STRIP
MALICIOUS COMPLIANCE
Malicious compliance is when you obey the exact words, knowing full well that the compliance will result in a disaster.
If I didn’t do it, I would be fired, and someone who would do this will be hired, and it will be done anyway, so let me comply and do this evil.
The Last Day
Nasrudin’s neighbours coveted his fatted lamb, and often tried to make him kill it for a feast.
Plan after plan failed until one day, when they convinced him that within twenty-four hours the end of the world would come.
‘In that case,’ said the Mulla, ‘we might as well eat it.’ So they had a feast. When they had eaten, they lay down to sleep, taking off their jackets.
After several hours the guests awoke to find that Nasrudin had piled all the clothes on a bonfire and burnt the lot.
They raised a howl of rage, but Nasrudin was calm: ‘My brothers, tomorrow is the end of the world, remember? What need will you have of your clothes then?
In Satirical or Popular Media
Monty Python skits
The Onion headlines
John Oliver and Colbert monologues
They often use reductio ad absurdum through humor—showing how a policy or idea, when followed to the letter, becomes laughably destructive or illogical.
REDUCTIO AD IMPLOSION
A Humble Target
In Nasrudin’s village there lived several delinquent young lads. One day, the Mulla was passing a gang of these youths when their leader threw a stone at his donkey. Instead of punishing the boy, Nasrudin called him over and gave him a meat pie.
“What’s this?” sneered the youth, snatching and devouring
the pie. “Trying to tame me with kindness?”
“Nothing of the sort,” replied the Mulla. “I was simply making up for the fact that you only had my humble donkey as a target. A mischief-maker of your caliber deserves a far nobler mark.”
Wishing to show off in front of his friends, the lad looked about for a more elaborate target.
At that moment, the mayor rode by on an elegant stallion. At once, the lad picked up the biggest rock he could find and hurled it at the horse, which shied and threw its eminent rider.
The irate mayor immediately summoned his bodyguards to take the young ruffian away and give him a sound beating.
REFERENCES
https://helpfulprofessor.com/reductio-ad-absurdum-examples/
https://sfipodcast.com/episode-22-slow-cooker/
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/animals/miscellany/plato-and-diogenes-debate-featherless-bipeds
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qsw3bw/did_diogenes_really_run_into_platos_academy_with/