Philosophy Now Forum

It may exist, but I don't live there.

Here, where I live, your pants are on fire or your pants are not on fire.

Here, where I live, the fella is lyin' or is not lyin'

Here, where I live, the cat in the box is alive or dead.

Here, where I live, there's no middle to exclude, no third position to take.

Your wife cheats or she doesn't, your kid shoplifted or he he didn't, your neighbor murdered or he didn't, your boss embezzles or he doesn't, and on and on.

Duality (this or that, up or down, in or out, right or wrong) is apparently natural and normal. I, at least, find it useful.


Now, who's got some paradoxes for me to piss on...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:45 pm It may exist, but I don't live there.

Here, where I live, your pants are on fire or your pants are not on fire.

Here, where I live, the fella is lyin' or is not lyin'

Here, where I live, the cat in the box is alive or dead.

Here, where I live, there's no middle to exclude, no third position to take.

Your wife cheats or she doesn't, your kid shoplifted or he he didn't, your neighbor murdered or he didn't, your boss embezzles or he doesn't, and on and on.

Duality (this or that, up or down, in or out, right or wrong) is apparently natural and normal. I, at least, find it useful.


Now, who's got some paradoxes for me to piss on...

I agree, this is where we live. We live in Plato's cave as creatures of reaction responding to worldly and cosmic laws by means of our senses which includes dualistic associative thought. Is dualism the highest form of human thought? Most say yes. I'm in the minority who say no and the Law of the Included Middle reveals the limitations of dualism. If dualism supplies your need for meaning, by all means expand on it. My concern is for the minority who sense something being lost in the modern obsession with thought and seek a realistic means for putting thought into a human perspective. Awareness of The Law of the Included Middle serves this need. When it does, the paradox or contradiction is welcomed as a door rather than as an invitation to blindly take sides.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 3:40 pm

Included Middle is an idea proposed by Stéphane Lupasco (in The Principle of Antagonism and the Logic of Energy in 1951), further developed by Joseph E. Brenner and Basarab Nicolescu, and also supported by Werner Heisenberg. The notion pertains to physics and quantum mechanics, and may have wider application in other domains such as information theory and computing, epistemology, and theories of consciousness. The Included Middle is a theory proposing that logic has a three-part structure. The three parts are the positions of asserting something, the negation of this assertion, and a third position that is neither or both. Lupasco labeled these states A, not-A, and T. The Included Middle stands in opposition to classical logic stemming from Aristotle. In classical logic, the Principle of Non-contradiction specifically proposes an Excluded Middle, that no middle position exists, tertium non datur (there is no third option). In traditional logic, for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true (there is either A or not-A). While this could be true for circumscribed domains that contain only A and not-A, there may also be a larger position not captured by these two claims, and that is articulated by the Included Middle................................

This...

The three parts are the positions of asserting something, the negation of this assertion, and a third position that is neither or both.

...makes no sense to me.

I say your pants are on fire (I assert sumthin').

You say your pants are not on fire, and you show me your non-burning pants (you negated my assertion).

Where the hell does a third position come into play?

And: color me stupid but I don't see what any of this has to do with paradoxes.

I haven't caught up with the thread in completion yet. So I apologize if my response has been answered similarly by others.

The term, "contradiction" literally tells you that something is "con-" (= with), "-tra-" (=third), "-dict-" (=spoken/dictated), "-ion" (=particle).

Although such contradictions may seem useless to speak of under the assumptions of most things said, reality DOES hold certain factors that are sincerely not consistent with respect to the whole of totality. If there were no contradiction to reality as a whole, we'd have perfect 'consistency' in non-existence. Forces, if they are to have any ultimate causation, have to either have some justification for going from non-existence to existence. The alternative is for everything to be true at all times (in totality, not necessarily one particular universe). If absolutely everything was true, then this would include absolutely nothing. If only specific things are UNIQUELY true, then the question would be why some perfectly finite set of truths exist if you cannot contrast them with what is not true.

To understand how a contradiction can be true, take this statement: "I am alive and dead." While this may seem non-resolvable, there is an infinite possibilities in which this is true, of which one example is: "I am alive and dead ....in the period between two years before I was born and two years after." This is just one possible interval which justifies how this can be true. Reality as a whole CAN permit this true when we find a greater domain with respect to time. Totality holds all possible truths in a kind of 'simultaneous' way. [It's hard for us to escape the words we use for time, like 'simultaneous'.] All times are contained in totality and so we are just limited LOCALLY to perceive one specific reality. So our 'finite' reality is perceived to resolve paradox BY the illusion of time.

Note that if you are to ask what a real 'simultaneous' event is, this proves the nature of contradiction as real: a sincerely 'simultaneous' event is an interval that has NO TIME! That is, if there is a 'point' in time that exists, it is equally non-existing.....a paradox.

Politics and social constructs are ALWAYS contradictory because they deal with what is 'right' versus 'wrong' when nature itself is indifferent to this illusion (or better, delusion). But where people AGREE to certain things, we can show that people are acting hypocritical to some belief with respect to some morale they hold. This then is where we can use contradiction when we EXPECT something to be consistent.

Where things are contradictory in science, like the arguments surrounding interpretations on Quantum Mechanics, some argue that such appearances only indicate that something is "incomplete". That was the point about the Incompleteness Theorem mentioned in the article.

In general, I think that contradiction IS the engine of reality. That is, I think that all of reality only exists precisely because of a major contradiction regarding origins: that if reality came into existence from nothing, it comes about due TO the fact that a totality that might be identical to nothing would be both true and false. To such a reality, this is alright because where something is absolutely nothing, it lacks even any rule of 'consistency' that requires it to obey.

Thus, contradition and paradox are useful to understand even for more than curiosity or fun.

one apple, fired from the right caliber bazooka, will do more than keep the doctor away...

-Imp

"I agree, this is where we live. We live in Plato's cave"

Not me. I live in the world (and that means I stand, in conflict, against almost everyone, even, from time to time, allies, like yourself).

There's always somebody lookin' to put a leash on a man, like the one the dog wore in one of Aesop's tales. In that story the wolf, at first tempted by the dog's promise of fine food and a warm bed, took note of the fur worn away around the dog's neck and wisely went back to nearly starving in the winter woods.

#

"Awareness of The Law of the Included Middle serves this need. When it does, the paradox or contradiction is welcomed as a door rather than as an invitation to blindly take sides."

I see no point to it, but, then, that's me. If you have use for it, then I hope it serves you well.

One small bone: It's my side, always, and I'm blind in my left eye but I'm not blind.

"reality DOES hold certain factors that are sincerely not consistent with respect to the whole of totality."

Sure. There's all manner of weirdness on the subnuclear level that doesn't seem to reconcile with how things go on the level I live on. Similarly, on the level of galactic clusters there's weirdness not easily reconciled with what appear to be constants on my level.

But on my level: the world is consistent. The coffee in my cup doesn't spontaneously transform into gin; my cigarette smoke never orders itself into floating paragraphs out of Spillane; and, tomorrow, I'll climb out of bed still wearing 57 year old flesh (I won't be 16 or 37 or 29). The only contradictions are mistaken interpretations of available information and intentional (not always malign) deceptions (wordplay, for example).

#

"To understand how a contradiction can be true, take this statement: "I am alive and dead." While this may seem non-resolvable, there is an infinite possibilities in which this is true, of which one example is: "I am alive and dead ....in the period between two years before I was born and two years after."

Yeah, see, that's just a misunderstanding based on limited information. I am dead and alive gets resolved through clarification. No brain need be twisted 'round by such a thing. It's a puzzle piece made understandable by laying other puzzle pieces down.

#

"Politics and social constructs are ALWAYS contradictory because they deal with what is 'right' versus 'wrong' when nature itself is indifferent to this illusion (or better, delusion)."

That ain't contradiction, that's conflict. Politics, social constructs are warfare for pussies. Government is just the fist, the club, the gun, the bomb in a waistcoat with a gold pocket watch.

#

"In general, I think that contradiction IS the engine of reality."

I think Reality is, by definition, coherent and consistent and free (as opposed to chaotic).

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:02 pm one apple, fired from the right caliber bazooka, will do more than keep the doctor away...

-Imp

especially when you cram some razor blades into that apple

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:41 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:02 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 3:35 am Why do paradoxes need resolvin'?

Not a one of 'em is real.

Every paradox is either a semantic trick or just a thought experiment with no foundation in the real world.

Don't get me wrong: paradoxes are fun to play with, but they don't mean anything, bottomline.

“One must not think slightingly of the paradoxical…for the paradox is the source of the thinker's passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity.” - Kierkegaard

Are you saying that Kierkegaard is only plying fantasy games rather than being attracted to a quality of reality which cannot be revealed through the Law of the Excluded Middle?

Yeah, I don't much care what sad sack Søren had to say, and, I don't know or care about the Law of the Excluded Middle.

What I know: paradoxes didn't mean diddly. Clever word play and fictional musings.

Here's a challenge to you, or anyone: throw your most devious paradox my way and I'll dismantle it.

That's dismantle, not resolve.

Paradox: We do not need money to live.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:53 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:41 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:02 am
Are you saying that Kierkegaard is only plying fantasy games rather than being attracted to a quality of reality which cannot be revealed through the Law of the Excluded Middle?

Yeah, I don't much care what sad sack Søren had to say, and, I don't know or care about the Law of the Excluded Middle.

What I know: paradoxes didn't mean diddly. Clever word play and fictional musings.

Here's a challenge to you, or anyone: throw your most devious paradox my way and I'll dismantle it.

That's dismantle, not resolve.

Paradox: We do not need money to live.

Of course we don't. Money is a convenience, not a necessity. So: where's the paradox?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 5:26 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:41 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:02 am






Are you saying that Kierkegaard is only plying fantasy games rather than being attracted to a quality of reality which cannot be revealed through the Law of the Excluded Middle?

Yeah, I don't much care what sad sack Søren had to say, and, I don't know or care about the Law of the Excluded Middle.

What I know: paradoxes didn't mean diddly. Clever word play and fictional musings.

Here's a challenge to you, or anyone: throw your most devious paradox my way and I'll dismantle it.

That's dismantle, not resolve.

Instead of trying to dismantle what great minds openly contemplate in these times why not just admit there may be new approaches to reasoning that may change what it means "to understand." Don't believe or deny. Just be open to new possibilities

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27155

Included Middle is an idea proposed by Stéphane Lupasco (in The Principle of Antagonism and the Logic of Energy in 1951), further developed by Joseph E. Brenner and Basarab Nicolescu, and also supported by Werner Heisenberg. The notion pertains to physics and quantum mechanics, and may have wider application in other domains such as information theory and computing, epistemology, and theories of consciousness. The Included Middle is a theory proposing that logic has a three-part structure. The three parts are the positions of asserting something, the negation of this assertion, and a third position that is neither or both. Lupasco labeled these states A, not-A, and T. The Included Middle stands in opposition to classical logic stemming from Aristotle. In classical logic, the Principle of Non-contradiction specifically proposes an Excluded Middle, that no middle position exists, tertium non datur (there is no third option). In traditional logic, for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true (there is either A or not-A). While this could be true for circumscribed domains that contain only A and not-A, there may also be a larger position not captured by these two claims, and that is articulated by the Included Middle................................

In the future I believe the Law of the Included Middle and how it reconciles dualism which governs our secular beliefs will go a long way towards reconciling the absurd division between science and religion.

I do not see any division at all between science and religion.

What "absurd division" do you see between science and religion?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 5:26 amBut that is a long way off. The fact that the Law of the Included Middle necessitates levels of reality is a start. Opening to the third principle is the door Simone was referring to.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:05 pm The author describes types of contradictions and classifies them. But is there a way they can be resolved?

“When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door.” - Simone Weil

Does anyone here understand what she means by the door and how it can be opened?

I have absolutely NO idea what some "simone" thing means by "the door and how it can be opened". But what I KNOW is 'the door' is SHUT TIGHT with 'lies and dishonesty' and is OPENED, very simply and very easily, with 'Honesty'.

This 'Honesty', by the way, is not that attempt at so called "honesty", which 'you', human beings, fool "yourselves" and "each other" with. Thee Honesty that OPENS the 'door' to ALL of Life's, so called, mysteries is the whole and full Truthful Honesty.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:59 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:53 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:41 am

Yeah, I don't much care what sad sack Søren had to say, and, I don't know or care about the Law of the Excluded Middle.

What I know: paradoxes didn't mean diddly. Clever word play and fictional musings.

Here's a challenge to you, or anyone: throw your most devious paradox my way and I'll dismantle it.

That's dismantle, not resolve.

Paradox: We do not need money to live.

Of course we don't. Money is a convenience, not a necessity. So: where's the paradox?

To you it is obviously not a 'paradox', but to "others" it is a 'paradox'.

"Others" see things differently than 'you' do. For example, "others" also see the definition and the meaning of the word 'paradox' differently than 'you' do. So, is 'this' a 'paradox', to you?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:47 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:41 am Here's a challenge to you, or anyone: throw your most devious paradox my way and I'll dismantle it.

That's dismantle, not resolve.

Start with the liar's paradox.

Every human is a liar. True or false?

False. This is because young human can not lie.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:42 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:14 pm Er ... that isn't the Liar's paradox.

You are a human, so that's probably a lie.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:14 pm It isn't even a paradox.

That's what a liar would say.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:14 pm It's almost certainly true

Why should I believe a liar?

mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:14 pm , but in the highly unlikely event that some human turns out to have lived without once telling a lie, it will be false.

How would I know if such a human existed?

Is absence of evidence (of a lie) evidence of an absence (of lying)?

My deductive and inductive reasoning are at odds with each other...

YOUR reasoning is at odds with itself because of the illogical way 'you' reason.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:08 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:59 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:53 am

Paradox: We do not need money to live.

Of course we don't. Money is a convenience, not a necessity. So: where's the paradox?

To you it is obviously not a 'paradox', but to "others" it is a 'paradox'.

"Others" see things differently than 'you' do. For example, "others" also see the definition and the meaning of the word 'paradox' differently than 'you' do. So, is 'this' a 'paradox', to you?

Can you, would you, explain how We do not need money to live. is a paradox?