For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Does anyone here understand what she means by the door and how it can be opened?“When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door.” - Simone Weil
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 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.
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?“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
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.Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:02 amhenry 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.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?“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
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 possibilitieshenry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:41 amYeah, 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.Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:02 amhenry 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.
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?“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
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.
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.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................................
Because you don't strike me as a nihilist?henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 3:35 am Why do paradoxes need resolvin'?
Not a one of 'em is real.
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.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 3:35 am 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.
Start with the liar's paradox.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.
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.
Er ... that isn't the Liar's paradox.
You are a human, so that's probably a lie.
That's what a liar would say.
Why should I believe a liar?
How would I know if such a human existed?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.