Resolving Paradoxes

[Philosophy Now]

Noson Yanofsky tells us how to deal with contradictions and the limitations of reason that arise from them.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/106/Resolving_Paradoxes

[Nick_A]

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?

[Walker]

When you think you’ve encountered a contradiction, check your premises. One of them is wrong.

- Ayn Rand

[Nick_A]

When you think you’ve encountered a contradiction, check your premises. One of them is wrong.

- Ayn Rand

Simone Weil, a great exponent of deductive reason vs Ayn Rand, great exponent of inductive reason. I'll stick with Simone.

[Walker]

Never-the-less, a contradiction requires a false premise.

[Nick_A]

Never-the-less, a contradiction requires a false premise.

You probably only accept the Law of the Excluded Middle or the Law of Non-Contradiction proposed by Aristotle. However I am open to the Law of the Included Middle in addition to the Law of the Excluded Middle where applicable. Once a person opens to the reality of the Law of the Included Middle then it becomes clear when a contradiction can become a door.

[henry quirk]

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.

[Nick_A]

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?

[henry quirk]

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.

[Nick_A]

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.

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. But 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.

[Skepdick]

Why do paradoxes need resolvin'?

Not a one of 'em is real.

Because you don't strike me as a nihilist?

nihilist noun a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.

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.

Obviously it's a "semantic trick". Semantics is the study of meaning. You seem to be placing great significance/importance on the "real world" so it seems rather meaningful to you.

So why do you think "real", "realness" and "reality" are meaningful things?

[Skepdick]

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?

[Arising_uk]

When you think you’ve encountered a contradiction, check your premises. One of them is wrong.

- Ayn Rand

Simone Weil, a great exponent of deductive reason vs Ayn Rand, great exponent of inductive reason. I'll stick with Simone.

Will you? Well the quote from Rand(if it is one?) is exactly about logical deductive reasoning so whatever you think Weil was doing it wasn't deductive reasoning.

[mickthinks]

Start with the liar's paradox.

Every human is a liar.

Er ... that isn't the Liar's paradox.

It isn't even a paradox. It's almost certainly true, but in the highly unlikely event that some human turns out to have lived without once telling a lie, it will be false.

[Skepdick]

Er ... that isn't the Liar's paradox.

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

It isn't even a paradox.

That's what a liar would say.

It's almost certainly true

Why should I believe a liar?

, 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...