Why are paradoxes considered profound?

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
There is no such thing as illogic to apply logic Cyr

Correct. Because "this sentence is false" has nothing to do with logic!

No Cyr...that was applied to your own sentence :

"...it is Illogic to apply Logic..." is not SOUND !

...a matter of time conflict, if you are about to apply logic then logic is not yet applied thus it cannot be reasoned to be illogical given "illogical" imply´s the judgment use of Logic itself...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I think the solving is a continuous effort that will never truly end. But history has shown us that the processes are effective. We need facts, and we need to understand those facts. We also need to understand the "background", the context in which we organize these facts, and how we distinguish one fact from another. Our disciplines of discovery and inquiry are extremely adaptable, so new information and interpretation can usually be added without us having to start from scratch. I call that steady progress. I am content with following it with anticipation and excitement.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

...a matter of time conflict, if you are about to apply logic then logic is not yet applied thus it cannot be reasoned to be illogical given "illogical" imply´s the judgment use of Logic itself...

Think of it this way. Before applying logic to a problem, use logic to determine if the problem is valid. If it's not, no amount of logic can solve it, and it will be wasted effort, which is very illogical. It is not a linear process.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

...we both agree on progress granted, but in here we have a problem on having a sound valid proposition which obviously leads to a irrational conclusion...needs resolve and is a good damn exercise for mental agility...even if we can´t come out with a decent solution trying is already well worth...food for thought !

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
...a matter of time conflict, if you are about to apply logic then logic is not yet applied thus it cannot be reasoned to be illogical given "illogical" imply´s the judgment use of Logic itself...

Think of it this way. Before applying logic to a problem, use logic to determine if the problem is valid. If it's not, no amount of logic can solve it, and it will be wasted effort, which is very illogical. It is not a linear process.

That is like asking to kill myself before I was born...no can do.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

here we have a problem on having a sound valid proposition which obviously leads to a irrational conclusion

Logically, if the conclusion is irrational, either the reasoning or the proposition is invalid.

It might also be the case that we just don't understand the conclusion, that the irrationality is in the person trying to understand, not in the conclusion itself, though this is generally only a risk when the conclusion in question was reached by someone else, and you are trying to follow it in retrospect, reading articles and watching videos on youtube, as we both are fond of doing.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

That is like asking to kill myself before I was born...no can do.

If that were true you wouldn't be able to determine if a conclusion was paradoxical or not. Logic doesn't happen independent of facts and information. On the contrary, it is a tool to navigate and organize and understand facts and information.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

...not speaking on facts Cyr it is a proposition...of course you could n´t in an actual world apply a judgment of logic/not logic (illogic) if logic did not existed already, that was my point all along ! that´s why it is not sound...

0 Replies

Are you two still at it?

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

At the risk of oversimplification:
1.Paradoxes indicate the limits of classical logic (as already suggested by other posts)
2. These limits are a direct consequence of the calculus of logic being isomorphic to static set theory in which set membership is considered axiomatic i.e. "given" or outside the actions of observers.
3. Paradoxes arise because "observer states" dynamically re-classify set membership in the course of inter-action with "the observed".
4. Paradoxes therefore ( Wink

) indicate the significance of the interactive relationship between observer and observed.
5. "Profundity" describes the difficulty of attaining a vantage point from which to describe the interaction of observer and observed.
6. Post-modernism is in essence an attack on "the given" and is therefore iconoclastic with respect to foundationalist analytic philosophy. Since such the quest for foundationalism underpins the concept of philosophy as an "academic" discipline, this accounts for the animosity of so-called "professional philosophers" to Derrida (et al).

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

...good memory you have there ! Wink

0 Replies

@fresco,

When you speak on the limits of Logic what do you mean, that the phenomenological world of our experience has no logic governance or that it has ? because I am getting the impression your answer is a kind of so so half way, which honestly my limited intellect cannot grasp, go figure why...so for the sake of charity clarify, either you are criticizing the models upon which we apply logical judgements, or you are criticizing "the given" in our experience, (no other upon the table) which must itself have some sort of reason...a single person in the world would still need a logical system to exist since the experience of the self is no less system then the social experience...what you are left with independently on the problem of things in themselves, even in subjective experience, is with a logical system or with no system at all, in which case you are to justify the level of organization you experience everyday...thus I am granting for the sake of your argument solipsism, which is the most intransigent philosophical account of subjectivity and all the crap that comes with it...so lets indulge n say I am a figment of your imagination talking inside your mind, how do you account for the level of organization present in this conversation ?...is your mind in its subjective experience dependent on a logical system or not ? because once again, one thing is to criticize this or that model for logic in particular and quite another to state that the world of your experience has no foundation...at the very least, a self enclosed system does not need other justification then the rules by which it abides, but for being named a "system" at all it definitely needs rules...assuming its a non logical world is assuming such rules don´t exist, and yet this conversation you are having with me inside of your subjective mind seems sufficiently orderly...
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me or anyone else for that matter, but I do have a problem that you don´t even care enough to bring on a satisfactory explanation on your standing point...and that´s what is so terribly irritating in the pro mind groovy movement...not the idea but the lack of a decent explanation !

3 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

(EDITED)

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

When you speak on the limits of Logic what do you mean, that the phenomenological world of our experience has no logic governance or that it has ? because I am getting the impression your answer is a kind of so so half way, which honestly my limited intellect cannot grasp, go figure why...so for the sake of charity clarify, either you are criticizing the models WITH (edited) which we usually apply logical judgements, or you are criticizing "the given" in our experience, (no other upon the table) which must itself have some sort of consistent reason...a single person in the world would still need a logical system to exist since the experience of the self is no less system then the social experience...what you are left with independently on the problem of things in themselves, even in subjective experience, is with a logical system or with no system at all, in which case you are to justify the level of organization you experience everyday...thus I am granting for the sake of your argument solipsism, which is the most intransigent philosophical account of subjectivity and all the crap that comes with it...so lets indulge n say I am a figment of your imagination talking inside your mind, how do you account for the level of organization present in this conversation ?...is your mind in its subjective experience dependent on a logical system or not ? because once again, one thing is to criticize this or that model for logic in particular and quite another to state that the world of your experience has no foundation...at the very least, a self enclosed system does not need other justification then the rules by which it abides, but for being named a "system" at all it definitely needs rules...assuming its a non logical world is assuming such rules don´t exist, and yet this conversation you are having with me inside of your subjective mind seems sufficiently orderly...
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me or anyone else for that matter, but I do have a problem that you don´t even care enough to bring on a satisfactory explanation on your standing point...and that´s what is so terribly irritating in the pro mind groovy movement...not the idea but the lack of a decent explanation !

Consider truth value to be asserted in between your seeking conscious mind which brings on sound propositions, and your unconscious mind which is the base of the system from which you are trying to infer a true state of affairs...now go on and tell me you are subjective to your own subjectivity in there...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

..Is your own subjective experience objective to your conscious mind ? and regarding your memories, the Fresco´s experiences of the last month ?
What can you do of a self which statistically keeps loosing himself (a) inside himself (b) and so on ad aeternum ?
I would reason its a wonder that you can speak, if it is the case that a multiple subjectivity continually looses contact with its previous layer of experience...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

The reply was directed specifically to the experience of "a paradox" (such as those conforming to Russell's formalism of "the class of all classes that are not members of themselves"). The fact is that we can see meaning in such "illogical"statements as "the most important truth is that there is no such thing as truth". What happens here is that "the mind" bypasses "the law of the excluded middle", thereby severing the link with static set theory. For example, a finite state machine model of "the mind" as a decision mechanism, (as perhaps in a game of bridge,)interprets the word "truth" (as used above) differentially according to the timeline of the discourse ( In "the timeline of the bidding" two clubs could mean either a strong or a weak bid)

1 Reply

@fresco,

So if understood well your argument very much once again goes with an infinite model, which is to my view the only possible valid argument world you have left for provisory truths...

...Considering what I said after and assuming Solipsism how come you dont get lost in an infinite loop of subjectivity within subjectivity in several layers of self and mind ? In which case probablistically you increasingly would encounter ever growing degrees of entropy to the point of not being able to read this post...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...more elaborately what I mean is, over time and considering mind in a dynamic changing set of its own how would you prevent loss of information by progressive changes in subjective meaning from a "self 1" time (a) lost to a "self 2" time (z) ?
How would you conserve information without objective truth to ground the all building increasing spin ?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me or anyone else for that matter, but I do have a problem that you don´t even care enough to bring on a satisfactory explanation on your standing point...and that´s what is so terribly irritating in the pro mind groovy movement...not the idea but the lack of a decent explanation !

Just an observation. The criteria of one "movement" of what is considered a satisfactory explanation may not be the same as the criteria of another "movement". With good knowledge of the first the explanation might seem adequate, while contrasting it to the second, it might seem lacking.
Is it the responsibility of the one explaining or the one listening to provide satisfaction?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Yes and no...that is, yes if he is willing to keep sustaining a dialogue...otherwise one would simply argue that both "languages" (assigned meanings) are not interchangeable...

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

At the risk of oversimplification:
1.Paradoxes indicate the limits of classical logic (as already suggested by other posts)
2. These limits are a direct consequence of the calculus of logic being isomorphic to static set theory in which set membership is considered axiomatic i.e. "given" or outside the actions of observers.
3. Paradoxes arise because "observer states" dynamically re-classify set membership in the course of inter-action with "the observed".
4. Paradoxes therefore ( ) indicate the significance of the interactive relationship between observer and observed.
5. "Profundity" describes the difficulty of attaining a vantage point from which to describe the interaction of observer and observed.
6. Post-modernism is in essence an attack on "the given" and is therefore iconoclastic with respect to foundationalist analytic philosophy. Since such the quest for foundationalism underpins the concept of philosophy as an "academic" discipline, this accounts for the animosity of so-called "professional philosophers" to Derrida (et al).

Amazing. Thank you.

In this sense, would you say that it is correct that we cannot have analytical labels without making them into methodological tools of some sort? E.g. in musicology (only thing I really know about) some academics tried to apply deconstruction to music. Deconstruction, as I understand it, is not meant to work as a methodology; in fact, to use it as such would be antithetical to the idea of deconstruction. But in each case of its application to music it has become a methodology (whether we consider this a 'true' form of deconstruction or not) because of the fact that analysis necessarily divides an 'object' into parameters, qualities or sections, and assesses the relationship between these in order to make a conclusion about the nature of the object. Can we have analysis without imposing structures onto our object of study?

2 Replies

Why are paradoxes considered profound?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know