How would Aristotle (or maybe medieval exponents of Aristotelian logic, I'm not sure) have dealt with the first example? If a woman turned up at the polling booth claiming to be a property holder this is the argument she might have presented: All property holders may vote Some property holders are women Therefore some women may vote. The official might have countered with All property holders may vote No woman may vote Therefore no woman may be a property holder
That can probably be resolved by clarifying what "property holder" means. 1. Every property holder may vote. 2. Some woman is a property holder. C. Therefore, some woman may vote. Either being a man is a necessary condition for being a property holder, or it's not. If it is, then either premise 2 is false, since no woman can be a property holder according to the law, or it uses "property holder" in a sense different from premise 1, which would render the syllogism invalid by committing a fallacy of four terms. But if being a man is not a necessary condition for being a property holder, then the law gives women the possibility to be property holders. Since all property holders may vote, the law allows women to vote from the start. However, the law also prohibits women from voting, so I only see 2 possibilities here: 1. There's an implicit exception at play: "no woman may vote" just means "no woman, except one who is a property holder, may vote," or "every property holder may vote" means "every property holder, except those who are women, may vote". Or 2. The law is contradictory from the very beginning: given that the law does not restrict women from being property holders and allows any property holder to vote, it allows women to vote. However, at the same time, by another decree, it prohibits women from voting. The law allows women to vote and disallows women to vote, a patent contradiciton. Since the law is contradictory from the very beginning, to consider it legitimate, we would have to assume the position that contradictions can be made true by fiat, which a defender of the principle of non-contradiction would obviously reject. Therefore, the law is illegitimate, at least in this regard. The dialetheist would need to demonstrate that contradictions can be made true by fiat, which was not the case in Priest's example.
@Oners82 If you reject the principle of non-contradiction you are actually presupossing it, insofar as you say that something specific (the principle of non-contradiction) is false and something other specific (for example dialetheism) is true. This is a fallacy insofar as you presuppose something which you deny (by this very act). So by trying to reject the principle of non-contradiction you have given the best (and maybe only) proof of it. (You, Oners82, have already more or less given the proof in an earlier comment).
@Oners82 presupposing the laws of thought to hold such laws as axiomatic is cutesy tautology, but it can be challenged outright by anyone rejecting the presupposition. The fallacy of your reasoning, no doubt propelled by a form of pseudo-intellectual egomania, rests in affirming the very thing being investigated. That won’t do- there is no basis to imply the absolutism of anything, therefore there is no fundamental issue with rejecting noncontradiction. The only reason we do so is to reach a workable consensus. Methinks you need a refresher of logic, my guy.
Dialethia is founded on belief, 'IF you believe this then...' but Aristotle was right, you cannot have a true contradiction. The closest thing to it is a clumsy, ill-thought out argument.
@@gorankatic40000bc both are true. But where is the contradiction? There is none, because it is possible to be both (partially) inside and outside at the same time. But this is not a dialetheia. In order to be so, it should be worded is he inside the house or is he not inside the house? Then the answer is clear: he is inside the house, because part of him is inside the house. (same if the question was is he outside the house or not outside the house... The answer is he is outside). There is no contradiction here.
@@gorankatic40000bc This is less a problem with contradiction and more of an issue of insufficient information or poor wording. For instance, we can divide the question up to 4 different questions of "Is Albrecht inside the house at all?", "Is Albrecht outside the house at all?" "Is Albrecht completely outside the house" and "Is Albrecht completely inside the house?". So there really is no contradiction to state that. It would just boil down to what we would define/mean by insideness or outsideness. If we In both cases mean complete insideness and complete outsideness then the question is a false dichotomy that does not include the middle point. So the answer is: Either the question is incoherent or the answer would depend on what it would mean to be inside or outside.
@@gorankatic40000bc If I understand your comments correctly, "inside" could include or exclude *partially inside* (and similarly for "outside"), and so the question "is Albrecht inside or outside of the house?" is ambiguous. If partially inside/outside is included in the definitions of inside/outside then the answer is "yes, in fact he is both inside *and* outside of the house". If the definitions exclude partially inside/outside then the answer is "neither, he is partially inside and partially outside (and partially within the boundary between inside and outside if you care to also make that distinction within your definitions)". Is there something I've said here that you disagree with? If so, please provide details. TBH, I'm not sure if you're trying to make a point, and if so, what that point is. Can you please clarify?
@@gorankatic40000bc happy to explain the difference with your example, but can you first please define inside and outside? Is inside: 1) Exclusively inside (100%... i.e. no part outside) 2) Majority inside (>50%) 3) At all inside (>0%) 4) Something else (please define) I will assume the same definition for outside unless you state otherwise.
I'd like to see a woman that can vote and not vote at the same time and in the same sense... maybe someone can explain to me what that would look like.
@@chrisctlr he gave the example and I think you mixed it with the "Schrodinger's cat" physical state of voting and not voting at the same time. In the situation given at 6:33, which is one that could really happen, that woman would be able to vote (bc she's a property holder or 2nd statement) but also she's not able (bc of the first statement). She is in the situation of being *able and not able*, it doesn't mean that she is gonna vote and not vote at the same time which may be a physical contradiction.
I think any normal human mind can create a dialethia and put it out in reality in the form of laws or books or in practical living, but the objective Reality outside of us is never contradictory and that is what the law of non contradiction describes about- not the subjective irrational products of the human mind but the objective rationality of the real world.
Your thoughts are crystal clear. Aristotle will live long and well because, unless these so called philosophers, he thoughts that the law of non contradiction is a law of being. I'm glad I'm not alone in the fight with this sophistry.
That bit about his whole book being meaningless reminds me of a thought I occasionally have. I am not a mathematician or a physist by any means.. but I sometimes think about quantum mechanics. I think about how physicists have derived formulas describing the probability of a particle being in a particular state. Without knowing exactly what these formulas are one has to assume that they are based on observation. If you then assume the many worlds interpretation is true one can imagine a world in which particles always behave in a very strange way. In fact one can imagine that the set of all worlds contains particles which, taken as a whole have a state of uniform randomness meaning that an observer in one of these worlds cannot derive any meaning about the nature of the universe in which he exists because that universe is inherently random and he is unable to observe its true randomness. In the next instant the whole world could dissolve into complete chaos with a likelihood of this happening approaching 1. However if this is the case then the whole argument, in fact any argument is built on meaningless science. Perhaps a better and more simple example of this is imagining that you are a Boltzmann brain. You believe you are likely to be a Boltzmann brain because the universe will be in a state of near 0 entropy for most of its existence, however if you are a Boltzmann brain then quantum mechanics, thermodynamics--all of physics in fact may only exist in your mind in the split second that you exist. Meaning it's kind of a fuzzy parodox. "Fuzzy" because it is based on probability. I think a lot about reality being derived out of purely uniform randomness.. I hate doing it because it gives me a lot of anxiety but at the same time it's a tempting thing to ruminate about. It seems more.. likely to me that either nothing would exist or *every* possible thing would exist then for just one random universe to exist.. but that's just a feeling and leads to a lot of self parodoxes.. this also leads me to stuff like the sleeping beauty probability problem which I have heard relates to the Principle of Indifference which I haven't read to much about yet.
World tourist example. The role of political discourse through forms of ideology may hold that, for example, a libertarian is not an anarchist given the core value of governance, but is a qualified anarchist given a periphery value, where the freedom to travel abroad entails to tour through an authoritarian state. The periphery value of freedom by cultural association manifests a sense of unbelief in the core value of governance. Confusion ensues in the form of travel narrative. Notion of citizen, national identity, international travel as a form of phenomenological (mode of travel) political (mode of intersubjective interaction) dialetheism (modes of ideological states). Speed of first mode correlates with rapidity of third mode that then impacts on the second mode, that impacts on grass roots relations with 'other'...
If you reject the principle of non-contradiction you are actually presupossing it, insofar as you say that something specific (the principle of non-contradiction) is false and something other specific (for example dialetheism) is true. This is a fallacy insofar as you presuppose something which you deny (by this very act). So by trying to reject the principle of non-contradiction you have given the best (and maybe only) proof of it. It also follows that there is not necessarily an 'orthodoxy' about the principle of non-contradiction in western philosophy, because there is actually an argument for it (also found in the classical texts of western philosophy).
You are very clever and you explain yourself well, but you are still supposing that the principle of non-contradiction is true and applying it to a system which rejects it. That dialetheism rejects itself as true is part of what makes itself true, or, that the idea can be applied to itself and still hold within *its own* logic is part of what makes itself true. As Oners28 said, it is axiomatic. One's logical contradictions will go on forever when you look at and say more about what is said about dialetheism, and that is very appropriate, no? Perhaps you shall shake your head and think of me, 'He doesn't get it,' and perhaps I shall do the same for you. But therein, I think, lies some of the profound quality of dialetheism: that we be such similar creatures--dare I even say, essentially, the same--and yet we are wholly different. We both are and are not what we are and are not. That's how I view it. And that you view it a different way, that seems to me the system of dialetheism acting itself out in an evident way. In one sense, I see two where you see one, and in another sense, you see two where I see one.
@@nathanaelarnquist I dare you to live a single day in this world, supposing in your actions and thoughts, that there is no law of non-contradiction. The fact is that we must presuppose the law of non-contradiction both in order to reason and in order to live. Reject it and you may as well abandon argument altogether.
@@JH-pu3lu No. And yes. If I might make a dare to you, consider the breadth of existence, all the possibilities of how it could be. Then, is a thought (those thoughts of what existence could be) real or not? Is a thought reality or not? And consider all the ways that word might be meant, "reality." I know this is a lot to ask. Just reading this would be a great enough kindness to me, though. It is every day that I suppose there is no law of contradiction. This is the game I play, the way in which I'm SURE you think I waste my mind: seeing how all things both are what they are and are not what they are; how things are talking about themselves and are talking about everything else around them. An easy one--very empirical, too--is to look at a color and know that the color of the object you see is what the object is not. That is to say that the object absorbs the rest of the color spectrum and what you see is what it reflects. But to your consciousness, that is what is seen: red. Another, if you'll humor me: How do you define a word? You can't use the word itself, but what else would define it better than just that word? Perhaps you have heard of Indra's Net? Thusly do I see, with all things being both Self and Other. And, I posit, thusly do you see.
@@nathanaelarnquist Thanks for the reply :) I don't actually think you are denying the law of non-contradiction. This law is supposed to speak of two things, in the 'same way' at the 'same time.' It is not a proper contradiction to say that the rose is red, and not red. It is a contradiction to say, it is red at this moment, to me subjectively, and not red, at this moment, to me subjectively. A lot of these examples are only really powerful if we are being colloquial/vague with our language / categories of description. A lot of your examples do not seem clear to me. The question of what is 'language' and what is 'real' are both deep questions, but there are coherent answers to them, without accepting contradictions are real. Your examples are therefore actually side stepping the question. Can you really have any coherent thought, without presupposing the law of non-contradiction? Could I even interpret your argument in favor of dialetheism, if I assume that your argument can contradict itself? I dont think this is possible.
@@JH-pu3lu In response to your first paragraph, I believe it is so that language, and communication in general, is vague; unprecise. I do believe there are ineffable things in-between each letter. For everything I say, I do want to say the opposite just after, just to be clear, but I do not think that would be conducive to a good argument, so I don't. Even that sentence, though, it applies to itself. And that one. . . Perhaps this isn't a philosophical argument at all, though. Ought it be? I was aware my examples would not be strictly convincing, but I thought they might be a good point for further contemplation. "Just what does he mean by that? Why does light bounce off of things? A force against an object, reflected, Newton's first law." True contradiction is much more subtle than a rose being both red and not red to one person in the same moment, for that rose must both be red and not red to that person and not red and not not red to that not person at that not moment. I endorse the principle of explosion. And, keep in mind, I do not ask "How?" but "Why?" And what's the difference, truly? Was I *ever* able to have any coherent thought? What is the essence of coherency; what makes something coherent? I am such that, yes, I refute my own argument, I say that it is false. And that argument that it is false? That, too, would be false. All things are false and all things are true. (A trivialist, I suppose I am, and I know that is a very radical point of view to take, and one of which I will not likely convince you.) The prime truth, if you ask me--that which is the matrix of reality--is this: All things are, all things are not; all non-things are, all non-things are not. This is the only cosmology which makes sense to me. What else could exist? I do not believe in an arbitrator of existence outside of existence, in some Heavens--no. Instead, all things are connected. And also not. And also not not.
Fantastic lecture! Dialethism as a solution to the liar's paradox and Mahayana's claims about the ultimate reality.
You hit the mark.
Contradictions are the way forward. Loop of thinking, love it
lol no
@@crypastesomemore8348 No? Explain your thoughts please.
Thank you, this was an extremely helpful video to my essay on duality
How would Aristotle (or maybe medieval exponents of Aristotelian logic, I'm not sure) have dealt with the first example?
If a woman turned up at the polling booth claiming to be a property holder this is the argument she might have presented:
All property holders may vote
Some property holders are women
Therefore some women may vote.
The official might have countered with
All property holders may vote
No woman may vote
Therefore no woman may be a property holder
That can probably be resolved by clarifying what "property holder" means.
1. Every property holder may vote.
2. Some woman is a property holder.
C. Therefore, some woman may vote.
Either being a man is a necessary condition for being a property holder, or it's not.
If it is, then either premise 2 is false, since no woman can be a property holder according to the law, or it uses "property holder" in a sense different from premise 1, which would render the syllogism invalid by committing a fallacy of four terms.
But if being a man is not a necessary condition for being a property holder, then the law gives women the possibility to be property holders. Since all property holders may vote, the law allows women to vote from the start. However, the law also prohibits women from voting, so I only see 2 possibilities here:
1. There's an implicit exception at play: "no woman may vote" just means "no woman, except one who is a property holder, may vote," or "every property holder may vote" means "every property holder, except those who are women, may vote".
Or
2. The law is contradictory from the very beginning: given that the law does not restrict women from being property holders and allows any property holder to vote, it allows women to vote. However, at the same time, by another decree, it prohibits women from voting. The law allows women to vote and disallows women to vote, a patent contradiciton. Since the law is contradictory from the very beginning, to consider it legitimate, we would have to assume the position that contradictions can be made true by fiat, which a defender of the principle of non-contradiction would obviously reject. Therefore, the law is illegitimate, at least in this regard. The dialetheist would need to demonstrate that contradictions can be made true by fiat, which was not the case in Priest's example.
Fantastic
How about the wave-partical duality of light. Where ligjt is both these, multilateralexculsive things simulationsly until you test it.
Please give me a example of dialetheism
This sentence is false.
¿How would dialetheism interact with Gödel's Theorems?
One can sacrifice consistency for completeness in a paraconsistent mathematics.
Is there any writing on his views on the philosophy of law, basically where he argues the same things?
Why can’t a form be an object?
1:40 "you would have everything, which is slightly too much" :p
amazing
loving this...can DD present a rational argument for how the law of non contradiction is true in all situations.
holy shit darth dawkins! I talk to this bastard all the time.
@Oners82 If you reject the principle of non-contradiction you are actually presupossing it, insofar as you say that something specific (the principle of non-contradiction) is false and something other specific (for example dialetheism) is true. This is a fallacy insofar as you presuppose something which you deny (by this very act). So by trying to reject the principle of non-contradiction you have given the best (and maybe only) proof of it. (You, Oners82, have already more or less given the proof in an earlier comment).
@Oners82 presupposing the laws of thought to hold such laws as axiomatic is cutesy tautology, but it can be challenged outright by anyone rejecting the presupposition. The fallacy of your reasoning, no doubt propelled by a form of pseudo-intellectual egomania, rests in affirming the very thing being investigated. That won’t do- there is no basis to imply the absolutism of anything, therefore there is no fundamental issue with rejecting noncontradiction. The only reason we do so is to reach a workable consensus. Methinks you need a refresher of logic, my guy.
I think this might apply to Gödels theorem
Dialethia is founded on belief, 'IF you believe this then...' but Aristotle was right, you cannot have a true contradiction. The closest thing to it is a clumsy, ill-thought out argument.
@@gorankatic40000bc both are true. But where is the contradiction? There is none, because it is possible to be both (partially) inside and outside at the same time. But this is not a dialetheia. In order to be so, it should be worded is he inside the house or is he not inside the house? Then the answer is clear: he is inside the house, because part of him is inside the house. (same if the question was is he outside the house or not outside the house... The answer is he is outside). There is no contradiction here.
@@gorankatic40000bc This is less a problem with contradiction and more of an issue of insufficient information or poor wording. For instance, we can divide the question up to 4 different questions of "Is Albrecht inside the house at all?", "Is Albrecht outside the house at all?" "Is Albrecht completely outside the house" and "Is Albrecht completely inside the house?". So there really is no contradiction to state that. It would just boil down to what we would define/mean by insideness or outsideness. If we In both cases mean complete insideness and complete outsideness then the question is a false dichotomy that does not include the middle point. So the answer is: Either the question is incoherent or the answer would depend on what it would mean to be inside or outside.
@@gorankatic40000bc If I understand your comments correctly, "inside" could include or exclude *partially inside* (and similarly for "outside"), and so the question "is Albrecht inside or outside of the house?" is ambiguous.
If partially inside/outside is included in the definitions of inside/outside then the answer is "yes, in fact he is both inside *and* outside of the house". If the definitions exclude partially inside/outside then the answer is "neither, he is partially inside and partially outside (and partially within the boundary between inside and outside if you care to also make that distinction within your definitions)".
Is there something I've said here that you disagree with? If so, please provide details.
TBH, I'm not sure if you're trying to make a point, and if so, what that point is. Can you please clarify?
@@gorankatic40000bc I reworded the question in my first comment because "inside or not inside" is different to "inside or outside".
@@gorankatic40000bc happy to explain the difference with your example, but can you first please define inside and outside? Is inside:
1) Exclusively inside (100%... i.e. no part outside)
2) Majority inside (>50%)
3) At all inside (>0%)
4) Something else (please define)
I will assume the same definition for outside unless you state otherwise.
I'd like to see a woman that can vote and not vote at the same time and in the same sense... maybe someone can explain to me what that would look like.
In other words, it's one thing to say that people can express contradictions, it's another thing to say that those expressions can be true.
You're right
@@chrisctlr he gave the example and I think you mixed it with the "Schrodinger's cat" physical state of voting and not voting at the same time. In the situation given at 6:33, which is one that could really happen, that woman would be able to vote (bc she's a property holder or 2nd statement) but also she's not able (bc of the first statement). She is in the situation of being *able and not able*, it doesn't mean that she is gonna vote and not vote at the same time which may be a physical contradiction.
1:12 1:14
When you're a Woman of Norway and can vote there but you can't vote in Denmark...you can vote but not vote at the same time.
Excellent! :)
I think any normal human mind can create a dialethia and put it out in reality in the form of laws or books or in practical living, but the objective Reality outside of us is never contradictory and that is what the law of non contradiction describes about- not the subjective irrational products of the human mind but the objective rationality of the real world.
Your thoughts are crystal clear. Aristotle will live long and well because, unless these so called philosophers, he thoughts that the law of non contradiction is a law of being. I'm glad I'm not alone in the fight with this sophistry.
but don't we are parts of the objective reality?
That bit about his whole book being meaningless reminds me of a thought I occasionally have. I am not a mathematician or a physist by any means.. but I sometimes think about quantum mechanics. I think about how physicists have derived formulas describing the probability of a particle being in a particular state. Without knowing exactly what these formulas are one has to assume that they are based on observation. If you then assume the many worlds interpretation is true one can imagine a world in which particles always behave in a very strange way. In fact one can imagine that the set of all worlds contains particles which, taken as a whole have a state of uniform randomness meaning that an observer in one of these worlds cannot derive any meaning about the nature of the universe in which he exists because that universe is inherently random and he is unable to observe its true randomness. In the next instant the whole world could dissolve into complete chaos with a likelihood of this happening approaching 1. However if this is the case then the whole argument, in fact any argument is built on meaningless science.
Perhaps a better and more simple example of this is imagining that you are a Boltzmann brain. You believe you are likely to be a Boltzmann brain because the universe will be in a state of near 0 entropy for most of its existence, however if you are a Boltzmann brain then quantum mechanics, thermodynamics--all of physics in fact may only exist in your mind in the split second that you exist. Meaning it's kind of a fuzzy parodox. "Fuzzy" because it is based on probability.
I think a lot about reality being derived out of purely uniform randomness.. I hate doing it because it gives me a lot of anxiety but at the same time it's a tempting thing to ruminate about. It seems more.. likely to me that either nothing would exist or *every* possible thing would exist then for just one random universe to exist.. but that's just a feeling and leads to a lot of self parodoxes.. this also leads me to stuff like the sleeping beauty probability problem which I have heard relates to the Principle of Indifference which I haven't read to much about yet.
World tourist example.
The role of political discourse through forms of ideology may hold that, for example, a libertarian is not an anarchist given the core value of governance, but is a qualified anarchist given a periphery value, where the freedom to travel abroad entails to tour through an authoritarian state. The periphery value of freedom by cultural association manifests a sense of unbelief in the core value of governance. Confusion ensues in the form of travel narrative. Notion of citizen, national identity, international travel as a form of phenomenological (mode of travel) political (mode of intersubjective interaction) dialetheism (modes of ideological states). Speed of first mode correlates with rapidity of third mode that then impacts on the second mode, that impacts on grass roots relations with 'other'...
Please stop with this continental bullshit
If you reject the principle of non-contradiction you are actually presupossing it, insofar as you say that something specific (the principle of non-contradiction) is false and something other specific (for example dialetheism) is true. This is a fallacy insofar as you presuppose something which you deny (by this very act). So by trying to reject the principle of non-contradiction you have given the best (and maybe only) proof of it. It also follows that there is not necessarily an 'orthodoxy' about the principle of non-contradiction in western philosophy, because there is actually an argument for it (also found in the classical texts of western philosophy).
You are very clever and you explain yourself well, but you are still supposing that the principle of non-contradiction is true and applying it to a system which rejects it. That dialetheism rejects itself as true is part of what makes itself true, or, that the idea can be applied to itself and still hold within *its own* logic is part of what makes itself true. As Oners28 said, it is axiomatic. One's logical contradictions will go on forever when you look at and say more about what is said about dialetheism, and that is very appropriate, no?
Perhaps you shall shake your head and think of me, 'He doesn't get it,' and perhaps I shall do the same for you. But therein, I think, lies some of the profound quality of dialetheism: that we be such similar creatures--dare I even say, essentially, the same--and yet we are wholly different. We both are and are not what we are and are not. That's how I view it. And that you view it a different way, that seems to me the system of dialetheism acting itself out in an evident way. In one sense, I see two where you see one, and in another sense, you see two where I see one.
@@nathanaelarnquist I dare you to live a single day in this world, supposing in your actions and thoughts, that there is no law of non-contradiction. The fact is that we must presuppose the law of non-contradiction both in order to reason and in order to live. Reject it and you may as well abandon argument altogether.
@@JH-pu3lu No. And yes. If I might make a dare to you, consider the breadth of existence, all the possibilities of how it could be. Then, is a thought (those thoughts of what existence could be) real or not? Is a thought reality or not? And consider all the ways that word might be meant, "reality." I know this is a lot to ask. Just reading this would be a great enough kindness to me, though.
It is every day that I suppose there is no law of contradiction. This is the game I play, the way in which I'm SURE you think I waste my mind: seeing how all things both are what they are and are not what they are; how things are talking about themselves and are talking about everything else around them. An easy one--very empirical, too--is to look at a color and know that the color of the object you see is what the object is not. That is to say that the object absorbs the rest of the color spectrum and what you see is what it reflects. But to your consciousness, that is what is seen: red. Another, if you'll humor me: How do you define a word? You can't use the word itself, but what else would define it better than just that word? Perhaps you have heard of Indra's Net? Thusly do I see, with all things being both Self and Other. And, I posit, thusly do you see.
@@nathanaelarnquist Thanks for the reply :)
I don't actually think you are denying the law of non-contradiction. This law is supposed to speak of two things, in the 'same way' at the 'same time.' It is not a proper contradiction to say that the rose is red, and not red. It is a contradiction to say, it is red at this moment, to me subjectively, and not red, at this moment, to me subjectively. A lot of these examples are only really powerful if we are being colloquial/vague with our language / categories of description.
A lot of your examples do not seem clear to me. The question of what is 'language' and what is 'real' are both deep questions, but there are coherent answers to them, without accepting contradictions are real. Your examples are therefore actually side stepping the question. Can you really have any coherent thought, without presupposing the law of non-contradiction? Could I even interpret your argument in favor of dialetheism, if I assume that your argument can contradict itself? I dont think this is possible.
@@JH-pu3lu In response to your first paragraph, I believe it is so that language, and communication in general, is vague; unprecise. I do believe there are ineffable things in-between each letter.
For everything I say, I do want to say the opposite just after, just to be clear, but I do not think that would be conducive to a good argument, so I don't. Even that sentence, though, it applies to itself. And that one. . . Perhaps this isn't a philosophical argument at all, though. Ought it be?
I was aware my examples would not be strictly convincing, but I thought they might be a good point for further contemplation. "Just what does he mean by that? Why does light bounce off of things? A force against an object, reflected, Newton's first law." True contradiction is much more subtle than a rose being both red and not red to one person in the same moment, for that rose must both be red and not red to that person and not red and not not red to that not person at that not moment. I endorse the principle of explosion. And, keep in mind, I do not ask "How?" but "Why?" And what's the difference, truly?
Was I *ever* able to have any coherent thought? What is the essence of coherency; what makes something coherent? I am such that, yes, I refute my own argument, I say that it is false. And that argument that it is false? That, too, would be false. All things are false and all things are true. (A trivialist, I suppose I am, and I know that is a very radical point of view to take, and one of which I will not likely convince you.)
The prime truth, if you ask me--that which is the matrix of reality--is this: All things are, all things are not; all non-things are, all non-things are not. This is the only cosmology which makes sense to me. What else could exist? I do not believe in an arbitrator of existence outside of existence, in some Heavens--no. Instead, all things are connected.
And also not. And also not not.
My brain hurts!!
😂 eggs so dialethism is true and false at the same time, and there is nothing you can say about it. Meaningless, you can't derive anything from it 😂