The meaninglessness of all views ie mathematics and science

What do you think of colin leslie deans view that all views entail meaninglessness ie self contradiction. Even nihilism and scepticism existentialism entail meaninglessness. All products of human thought entail meaninglessness -even meaninglessness entails meaninglessness

COLIN LESLIE DEAN argues an epistemological meaninglessness that claims all views all philosophies all philosophers entail meaninglessness All philosophers from the beginig such as Plato Aristotle to Nietzsche Kant Wittgenstein and all others all entail meaninglessness. All products of human thinking entail meaninglessness. Even meaninglessness entails meaninglessness Thesis and its antithesis entail meaninglessness ie the negation of the negation of the negation ad infinitum

Epistemological meaninglessness is different to and undermines skepticism and nihlism and claims these views entail meaninglessness. Epistemological meaninglessness has its greatest advocate in the philosopher Colin Leslie Dean. According to Dean's version epistemological meaninglessness entials logically via the rules of logic that all our concepts, all morals all religions, ideas of good , evil, notions of freedom, democracy all our categories, all our ideas, all theses, all antitheses all philosophies all epistemologies, all ethics, all ontologies, skepticism, nihlism, all metaphysics, even logic itself etc in other words all views, are meaningless, epistemologically- as they all logically entail meaninglessness ie self-contradiction and paradox.


Edit [Moderator]: Link removed "Contentless Thought: Case Study in the Madhyamika demonstrations of the meaninglessness of all views".

The logic reduces all views to meaninglessness even mathematics and science

Dean claims that mathematics and science are meaningless in that they entail or collaspes into self-contradiction and paradox. It is claimed that there are paradoxes at the heart of mathematics and science that make them meaningless. The mystery become that even though work and creates a pc or rockets to the moon they are logically not true . So how can they create useful things when by the laws of logic they are false

"The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views" Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

. What this meaninglessness means is a question that is dependent upon other views i.e. logic being an epistemic condition of truth or it not being an epistemic condition of truth.. In other words to draw a conclusion form the reduction to meaninglessness of a view/views one must assume some other epistemological ontological or metaphysical position or assumption. Now logic will also reduce these positions or assumptions to meaninglessness such that we in effect have nothing epistemologically to say at all in regard to what the reduction to meaninglessness of all views means ; since this meaning [stemming from a position or view about logic] will reduce to meaninglessness. Thus all we have is silence no more squabbling.]" Even meaninglessness entials meaninglessness logically. Logic when turned back on itself and investigates itself paradoxically entials meaninglessness or self-contradiction

Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
"Aristotelian logic as an epistemic condition of truth, the grand narrative of western philosophy: logic-centrism, the limitations of Aristotelian logic, the end of Aristotelian logic, logic/essence and language lead to the meaningless of all views".

Epistemological meaninglessness goes beyound nihlism and skeptcism in claiming even these views ential meaninglessness. Epistemological meaninglessness paradoxically even claims that logically epistemological meaninglesness entials meaninglessness. Logic demonstrates that every thing including itself ential meaninglesssness or self-contradiction.

In Dean's version of epistemological meaninglessness Logic cannot prove or disprove anything all that it does is reduce all views to self-contradiction- including itself. What this meaninglessness means is a question that is dependent upon other views i.e. logic being an epistemic condition of truth or it not being an epistemic condition of truth.. In other words to draw a conclusion form the reduction to meaninglessness [ self-contradiction]of a view/views one must assume some other epistemological ontological or metaphysical position or assumption. Now logic will also reduce these positions or assumptions to meaninglessness such that we in effect have nothing epistemologically to say at all in regard to what the reduction to meaninglessness of all views means ; since this meaning [stemming from a position or view about logic] will reduce to meaninglessness. Thus all we have is silence no more squabbling

Edit [Moderator]: Link removed "The dialectic reductio ad absurdum argument: a method of philosophical argumentation or analysis demonstrating the meaninglessness of all views"

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THESE CLAIMS