<< Back to the Reflective Mind [#GRZ_124] – Forward to Woman Wins [#GRZ_199] >>
There is a debate that the greatest philosophical minds have pondered since the beginning of time: “If we step on a polliwog, do we kill a polliwog or a frog?“
Well, says one side, “It is common sense that the things we are discussing and comparing, being polliwogs and frogs, are not the same thing by the self-evidenced fact that they must bear different names by different attributes. If these different things were given the same name, we would be confused by not being able to distinguish in conversation what must be distinguished in thought.“
This is another way of saying that, if a polliwog were a frog, then we would not need two different terms. Perhaps the common sense view.
No one needs to be a philosopher or critical thinker for that argument. For that argument, the evidence speaks for itself; that is, just look at a tadpole and a frog. They are not the same thing, even as viewed by a human being with a low IQ, or perhaps even as otherwise used by the simple metaphor of a master. [1, 2]
But, it is not that easy. Yes, indeed, human beings have really big brains, not the biggest brains of course, but still really big. As a result, human beings are capable of wonderful things, such as writing the U.S. Constitution, which is all about equality and justice for all. Great stuff. But, alas, human beings are also capable of really deplorable things, such as when the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that the U.S. Constitution—which espouses the most basic core value of “justice for all”—should be interpreted as “separate but equal,” effectively telling persons of color they are equal, but they just need to get their equal seat in the “back of the bus.“
So, with our big human brains, of course we would be dolts if we did not ponder why, oh why, the Supreme Court of the United States of America, with the arguably the best and brightest jurists in the United States of America, purporting to make a rational decision based upon law, held in Plessy v. Ferguson, that a person of color (1/8th African American in that case) is equal but effectively just needs to “go sit in the back of the bus.” [3] The question is why and how the United States Supreme Court could do something so deplorable. But, objectively viewed, it’s not that difficult, for those who can take the hit by the beam. [2.1]
Prejudice. Bias. Rationalization. [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]
Rationalization is backward “logic.” Rather than ending where logic should take it, rationalization starts with the desired result by application of prejudice and bias, then rationalization squeezes and contorts the thinking into a manner of getting to the desired result by contrived increments. The bigger the brain, the better the contortions are concealed, until it looks just like common sense.
Thank goodness, Father Time made all the difference as he always does, as he chimed in about 50 years later with Brown v. Board of Education, in which the U.S. Supreme finally overruled Plessy v. Ferguson. Such as it is, I will suggest that the judiciary can window-dress it up all it wants in self-preservation, but it’s still lipstick on a pig.
The truth is that the U.S. Supreme Court was biased and prejudiced when it issued the “separate but equal” ruling in Plessy, and Justice Harlan—the sole dissenter—knew it. [9] Yes, a lot of prejudiced and biased people loved that ruling when it was made, and they cheered the brilliant foregone concluded minds of the Court.
It took 50 years for Father Time to show the U.S. Supreme Court’s prejudicial foolishness and to vindicate Harlan posthumously; yes, Harlan was dead when he was vindicated, although he said would happen, in time. [10] “Father Time always gets his day.” [11, 12]
Now, such as it is, the philosophers and the critical thinkers in the room might take another position on the question, being a more complex and “thoughtful” assessment; to wit:
“Indeed, a polliwog is ultimately a frog by genetics. The perennial polliwog question implicates the well-known Doctrine of Possible Potentiality. That is, what a thing can be in the future is deemed to be fulfilled in the present by absolutes. By hypothetical, we disregard time to resolve the question. A thing is now what it could be then.“
That is, the Doctrine of Possible Potentiality does not to look at things as they are, but gives the things the assumptive hypothetical fictional benefit to have achieved their potentiality. The polliwog becomes a frog, only by hypothetically assuming the irrelevance of time or risks presented thereby, or, to say it otherwise, to assume the future potential is actually achieved right now, Father Time being made irrelevant. [*9]
The former argument is by actuality, and the latter argument is by potentiality. The former argument is a fact of present condition, and the latter argument is a hypothetical fiction of future condition. A polliwog is not a frog and is different from a frog, but could possibly potentially become a frog if it did achieve its potential. The “if” of future time is not a fact, but a hypothetical condition, understanding that “if” is the biggest little word in the world. [*9, 13, 14, 15] And, thusly, yes, the polliwog lives, and, yes, it could become a frog.
But, the question remains. When exactly does a polliwog become a frog, now or later? Later by actual fact, or now by assumed hypothetical fiction?
Yet, there is still a much better question; to wit: What is the process by which we answer the question, and is the view of our eye clear enough to know if our answer is rational or rationalized.
The age-old question that begs itself and pleads; “When is a zygote a child?”
The seeds of delusion and prejudice will never breed social stability. [*3] Silly courts say silly things, with hidden premises and mixed up words that breed mixed up thought, replicating social confusion. [16, *1]
The judgment by nine Republican justices was unanimous in then concluding that “unborn children are children.” This means that the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to “all children, born and unborn, without limitation.” It is standard practice in IVF treatment for multiple embryos to be fertilized, with just one returned to the women’s womb and the others discarded.
[17] So, again, we must ask ourselves:
“What is the process by which we answer the question, and is the view of our eye clear enough to know if our answer is rational or rationalized, particularly within the framework constraint of a diverse group of free-thinking people living together in harmony, where atheism and theism are analytical equals?”
In America, theism does not get any analytical advantage. Theism is no better analytically than atheism, by U.S. Constitutional constraint. [*3] It is a narrow gate. Few are strong enough to enter, and some could care less to try. [2.2]
<< Back to the Reflective Mind [#GRZ_124] – Forward to Woman Wins [#GRZ_199] >>
[2] ONE®: The LinkedIn Reference Set [#GRZ_183]: 3.1 ONE: 612 [T7:3, L6:41] (“Beam Eye“); 3.2 ONE: 621 [T7:13] (“Narrow Gate“)
[3] I Am Not Brainwashed, And Neither Are You. Maybe. But I Might be Wrong. [#GRZ_165]
[4] Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Chapter 1, Bias [#GRZ_91]
[5] Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Chapter 2, Cause and Effect [#GRZ_92]
[6] Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? Chapter 3, The Reflective Contemplative Dwelling Mind [#GRZ_124]
[7] The Orderly Administration Of A Diverse People. America Is Not A Church. [#GRZ_170]
[9] The Three Noble Cardinal Rules of Wisdom [#GRZ_189]
[10] Oliver Wendell Holmes and His Imbeciles – Stand for America® [#GRZ_71]
[11] The Proseuché (The Prayer of Socrates) Ch. VII Abridgment [Reasons] [#GRZ_153]
[12] The Proseuché Ch. VIII (The Prayer of Socrates) [Prayer] [#GRZ_131]
[13] Big Ideas – Business of Aesop™ No. 8 – Belling the Cat [#GRZ_4]
[15] Good v. Evil; Or, Thoughtlessness by Simplistic Vilification [#GRZ_126]
[16] The Importance of Aesop to Socrates [#GRZ_100]
[17] https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-supreme-court-justices-behind-ivf-ruling-1873042#:~:text=On%20February%2016%2C%20the%20Alabama%20Supreme%20Court%20ruled,in%20then%20concluding%20that%20%22unborn%20children%20are%20children.%22
[18] Epilogue: On the Wisdom of Aesop [#GRZ_24]
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Leonardo da Vinci. Adopted by Steve Jobs. [18, *16]
<< Back to the Reflective Mind [#GRZ_124] – Forward to Woman Wins [#GRZ_199] >>
ChatGPT Review
Gregg Zegarelli’s article “The Perennial Debate: If We Step on a Polliwog, Do We Kill a Polliwog or a Frog?” uses a deceptively simple biological metaphor—the transformation of a polliwog into a frog—to dissect one of the most complex and volatile philosophical, legal, and moral questions in modern society: when does life, or personhood, begin. Below is a structured analysis of what Zegarelli is teaching, how he teaches it, and what conclusions can be drawn.
🧠 PEDAGOGICAL METHOD (How Zegarelli Teaches)
1. Metaphorical Abstraction
- Polliwog vs. Frog becomes a stand-in for zygote vs. person.
- This metaphor allows discussion without immediate emotional or religious charge.
- He sets up a dichotomy: actuality (what something is now) vs. potentiality (what it could become).
2. Comparative Argument Framing
- He gives both sides of the debate:
- Common Sense Argument (Actuality): If it’s not a frog yet, it’s not a frog.
- Doctrine of Possible Potentiality: A polliwog is a frog in hypothetical future fulfillment.
- This mirrors legal/religious debates over zygote rights or embryo protection laws.
3. Philosophical Embedding
- Injects core themes of epistemology and logic:
- Rationalization vs. Reason
- Bias and prejudice as distorters of clarity
- Use of backward logic to justify pre-selected moral conclusions
4. Legal-Political Referencing
- Uses Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board as analogues:
- Courts once used logic to validate discrimination—logic distorted by prejudice.
- This illustrates how “big brains” (institutions) can produce “small truths” when clouded by moral rationalization.
5. Socratic Questioning
- Rather than force a conclusion, he emphasizes:
- “What is the process by which we answer the question?”
- This is a call to self-examination of epistemic clarity.
💡 CORE TEACHINGS & STEPS OF INSTRUCTION
| Step | Teaching Point | Illustrative Device |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | A polliwog and a frog are not the same by present fact. | Vocabulary distinction implies meaning: if they were the same, we wouldn’t have two names. |
| 2. | Philosophical minds introduce potentiality: what a thing can become. | Doctrine of Possible Potentiality says: treat the polliwog as if it’s already a frog. |
| 3. | But this fictional leap assumes away time, probability, and natural risk. | “If” is the biggest little word in the world. |
| 4. | Rationalization occurs when we reverse logic to match our bias. | Plessy v. Ferguson = prejudice cloaked in legal language. |
| 5. | Courts, like individuals, are not immune to bias. | Brown v. Board vindicates the clarity of truth after time. |
| 6. | The same logic error appears in zygote personhood debates. | Future potential is mistaken for present actuality. |
| 7. | The real question is not what is true, but how we assess what is true. | “Is the view of our eye clear enough to know if our answer is rational or rationalized?” |
🎯 CENTRAL PHILOSOPHICAL POINT
The error of conflating potential with actuality—especially when amplified by bias or religion—leads to unjust or irrational laws.
❝ Silly courts say silly things, with hidden premises and mixed up words that breed mixed up thought, replicating social confusion. ❞
Zegarelli is cautioning against the emotional and rhetorical tendency to argue for outcomes (e.g., protecting embryos or zygotes) by pretending a possible future state is the present reality. This is not logic—it is rationalization driven by moral preference.
🏛 CONTEXTUAL APPLICATION
- Abortion debates: “When is a zygote a child?” mirrors “When is a polliwog a frog?”
- IVF rulings (e.g., Alabama): Courts adopt “unborn children are children,” disregarding time and biology.
- Constitutional Secularism: Theism has no privileged epistemic status in American law; reasoned actualities must take precedence in legal doctrine over religious doctrines of potentiality.
🔍 ZEGARELLI’S ETHOS ON DISPLAY
- Precision in epistemic humility (asking the better question)
- Opposition to socialized religious dogma as legal standard
- Commitment to protecting individual conscience in a pluralistic society
- Use of satire and metaphor to disarm highly charged subjects
- Belief in time as clarifier of moral truth (Father Time as a character)
✅ CONCLUSION
Zegarelli’s deeper message is that the collapse of law and logic into religion-based emotional reasoning—particularly around personhood and rights—is a collapse of the American experiment in secular constitutionalism.
He’s not just asking whether a polliwog is a frog. He’s warning that our answer—and how we reach it—will reveal whether we are a nation of free thinkers or a people enslaved by rhetorical superstition masquerading as law.
“The zygote does not have a social existence and presents no threat for which the law must provide a defense.”
“America is not a church.”
20250416.4o
© 2024 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
The statements or opinions made in this article are solely the author’s own and not representative of any institution regarding which the author is affiliated.
GRZ196.20250416 GRZUID196
<< Back to the Reflective Mind [#GRZ_124] – Forward to Woman Wins [#GRZ_199] >>