【Common Dilemmas】
Do you often encounter these troubles?
× Being trapped in someone's rhetoric, unable to explain your point clearly?
× Feeling something is wrong with an article but unable to pinpoint the issue?
× Making decisions based on emotions and regretting them later?
This is because no one has taught you how to think correctly - smart people are all learning logic! Because logic is the weapon of thought, the ultimate tool to expose lies and see through the essence!

【Core Theme】
The masterpiece of logic master Yin Haiguang, guiding you to break through the shackles of conventional thinking! Transform Western logic into a thinking tool accessible to everyone.
From confusion to clarity, from intuition to rationality
Make your thinking more efficient and your decisions more precise.

【Content Design】
This book presents the dry subject of logic in the form of a lively classroom discussion among three characters - a teacher and two students. Through relatable scenarios, it enables readers to easily grasp logical forms.

【Target Audience】
1.All those who refuse to be "intellectual cabbages" and remain clear-headed
2.Those who are often confused by complex information and urgently need to clarify their thoughts
3.Fighters who are passionate about debates and negotiations and want to enhance their persuasive language skills
4.Lifelong learners who want to improve themselves but struggle to find the right methods

In daily life and thinking, people often encounter various troubles, such as being trapped in someone's rhetoric and unable to explain their point clearly, feeling that an article is wrong but unable to pinpoint the problem, and being swayed by emotions when making decisions and regretting it later. The root cause of these problems lies in the fact that no one has taught us how to think correctly. Learning logic can effectively solve these problems.

Mr. Yin Haiguang created this book in a unique way, presenting it in the form of a dialogue among three people: Professor Wu, Wang Yunli, and Zhou Wenpu. Professor Wu is both cultivated and learned, imparting his knowledge generously and guiding his students patiently. Wang Yunli is shy and modest, with a strong thirst for knowledge and a focus on ideas. Zhou Wenpu is passionate and straightforward, eager to learn and practical-minded. They engage in classroom discussions in a life-like setting, transforming the dry subject of logic into an interesting and engaging topic, allowing readers to master logical forms in a relaxed atmosphere.

Yin Haiguang, originally named Yin Fusheng, was a renowned philosopher and logician in modern China. Born in Huanggang County, Hubei Province, he studied under Jin Yuelin and was deeply influenced by his logic and philosophy. His major works include "New Introduction to Logic", "Prospects of Chinese Culture", and "Thought and Method". These works reflect his profound reflection on traditional Chinese culture and modern liberalism, as well as his lifelong pursuit and research in logic. Yin Haiguang adhered to independent thinking throughout his life and was courageous in criticizing social ills. His thoughts and personality charm make him an important figure in modern Chinese intellectual history that cannot be ignored.

"Is there any way to break a dilemma?" Zhou Wenjuan asked eagerly.

"Yes," replied Mr. Wu. "There are three methods to refute a dilemma: First, deny that the antecedent is a sufficient condition for the consequent. Second, deny that the alternative statements are mutually exclusive or jointly exhaustive. Third, construct a dilemma with a conclusion that contradicts the original one—everyone can try it themselves.

"Earlier, I gave an example: 'If you get married, then you’ll have the burdens of family life; if you don’t get married, then you’ll feel lonely and miserable. You only have two possibilities—either get married or not—so you’ll either face the burdens of family life or feel lonely and miserable.' If you want to refute this dilemma, it’s not difficult. You could say: 'If I get married, then I’ll have the joy of companionship; if I don’t get married, then I’ll avoid the burdens of family life. I only have two possibilities—either get married or not—so I’ll either have the joy of companionship or avoid the burdens of family life.' Doesn’t that directly counter it? This method of refutation works by breaking the assumed connection between the antecedent and the consequent as a sufficient condition and then constructing another dilemma."

"That’s really clever!" Zhou Wenjuan remarked.

"We can also look at a famous historical example, which is also quite ingenious," Mr. Wu continued. "In ancient Greece, the sophist Protagoras and his student Euathlus once made a contract with three conditions: First, Protagoras would teach Euathlus the law; second, upon graduation, Euathlus had to pay half of the tuition fee; third, the remaining half had to be paid after Euathlus won his first lawsuit. However, after graduation, Euathlus did not practice as a lawyer. Impatient, Protagoras took him to court and presented the following dilemma:

If Euathlus wins the case, then according to the contract, he must pay the debt;
If Euathlus loses the case, then according to the court’s judgment, he must pay the debt.
Euathlus will either win or lose the case.
Therefore, he must pay the debt.

"However," the old professor laughed, "his student was quite cunning too. He constructed a dilemma that directly contradicted Protagoras’ one." He then wrote:

If I win the case, then according to the court’s judgment, I do not have to pay the debt;
If I lose the case, then according to the contract, I do not have to pay the debt.
I will either win or lose the case.
Therefore, I do not have to pay the debt at all.

"Haha！ The teacher and student were truly evenly matched, countering each other point for point！ Protagoras’ dilemma seemed unbeatable, but once Euathlus constructed the opposing one, it completely neutralized its force. … Now, I ask you two, why did this happen?"

They pondered while shaking their heads.

"This kind of situation arises because each party selectively uses conditions that favor themselves while ignoring those that don’t, thereby constructing their respective dilemmas. In their debate, there were two key conditions: one was the court’s judgment, and the other was the contract terms. The court’s judgment had two possibilities: (1) regardless of who wins, the defendant doesn’t have to pay; (2) if the defendant loses, they must pay. The contract terms, on the other hand, were the opposite: (3) if the student wins, they must pay; (4) if the student loses, they don’t have to pay. There were four conditions in total. Among them, (2) and (3) favored the teacher, while (1) and (4) favored the student. Thus, the teacher constructed his dilemma based on (2) and (3), while the student constructed his based on (1) and (4). At first glance, this debate seems overwhelming, but as we’ve just analyzed, it was actually just each side talking past each other—never truly engaging. Since they never truly engaged, their arguments were irrelevant to each other. However, if we don’t analyze it carefully, we can easily be misled. This shows how crucial analysis is."

"Does studying logic help develop analytical thinking?" Wang Yunliang asked.

"Yes," Mr. Wu replied. "The more you engage with logic, the better you become at analytical techniques. Only through analysis can we clarify our thinking."