What's a postulate, and what's a variable?
To understand what a postulate is, we first need to understand what an axiom
is. So, here is a mathematical axiom that everyone will understand:
Because 3+5=8 and because 4+4=8, therefore
3+5 = 4+4
Those who like to put things in symbols,
write it as follows:
If a=c and b=c, then a=b
Simply stated, an axiom is a self-evident
statement that need not be proven. You accept it as an inviolable dogma, and
build on it whatever thesis you're propounding. You call it an axiom as long as
you're doing mathematics. But if you're talking philosophy, and you're
expressing statements as if they were axioms, then it is preferable to call
them by another name: postulates would be a good name.
As to “variables,” the best way to
understand what they are, is to give an example. Here is one:
If I give you $10 bills, the total amount
I would have given you at any time, will be equal to the number of bills
multiplied by $10.
So, if it is 3 bills, therefore 3 x $10 =
$30 dollars.
If it is 5 bills, therefore 5 x $10 = $50
dollars. And so on.
You have here a constant that is the $10
bill. You also have a variable that is the number of bills I'd give you at any
time. Therefore, the amount you'll receive each time, will be a function of the
variable.
If you're doing math or science, and you
confuse your postulate and your variable, you'll know you flunked by the time
you reach the end of your undertaking. But if you're doing philosophy or any
discipline in the humanities, you can get away with a great deal of nonsense,
especially if you're experienced in the art of obfuscating, haggling and
double-talking.
Jonathan S. Tobin is a superstar in the
art of obfuscating, haggling and double-talking. He wrote an article in which
he used his talent to reach conclusions that would astonish the resident wizard
in Satan's hell. The title of Tobin's article is: “The Problem with Trump's
'Normandy Doctrine,'” published on October 11, 2019 in National Review Online.
Guided by the history of how and why we
learn to like or dislike someone or something, we all have a list of saints and
a list of demons we keep in the back of our heads. As our experience and
circumstances evolve, we modify those lists. But the one thing we do not do, is
describe someone or something as being essentially good one moment, then flip
and describe them as essentially evil the next moment.
When we do this, we prove to be confused
as to what is a postulate and what is a variable. To see this, we look at the
following example from the Tobin article: “The controversy wasn't different
from other outrageous Trump utterances.” Well, those familiar with Tobin's
writing will remember that he never described the Trump character as being
anything but the epitome of perfection. For him to flip now and say that Trump
used to utter outrageous ideas, is to make the mistake that he accuses Trump of
making.
To understand this part, let's see what
Trump actually did. Here it is from Tobin's article: “Trump picked a line that
supported his stance from a piece by Kurt Schlichter that was a reasonable
argument.” And here is the Schlichter argument: “The Kurds deserve our sympathy
but not our protection at the cost of American lives … Let's be honest, the
Kurds didn't show up for us at Normandy”.
Schlichter's argument was reasonable, says
Tobin. Okay, we accept that. But was Trump's mention of it a reasonable thing
to do? Well, let's put it this way: Maybe yes and maybe not … but that's beside
the point. In fact, it is beside the point because Trump (at least this time)
did not make the mistake that Tobin did. It is that earlier, Trump had praised
the Kurds as did Schlichter. This has not changed, but it wasn't enough for
Schlichter or Trump to accept that Americans should die to protect the Kurds.
And this is where we see a legitimate use of the variable. Here is why:
The Schlichter/Trump argument boils down
to this: What we do for others is a function of what they do for us. “What they
do for us” being the variable that determines what we do for them, makes this
approach contrast sharply with what Tobin has done.
It is that Tobin was motivated by a
postulate while pretending to dispute the Schlichter/Trump variable. To be
precise, Tobin's postulate is that the protection of Israel is a dogma that
must never be violated. With this at the back of his head, he trashed Trump's
character for not being dogmatic in the defense of the Kurds, a stance that
Israel desperately wants to see materialize to protect its flank.