1
   

Non-Contradiction

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2004 10:53 pm
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:
No, Joe. I did not wish to imply that because a living being is also simultaneously in a continuous state of "dying" that a "dead" body (a non-being) is, conversely, in a continuous state of coming to life. But now we've transported from the logic of your topic to the fringes of biology.

Well, JLN, I'm glad you're not attempting to resurrect Centroles's Lazarus Dog here. But does being in a "continuous state of dying" equal "dead," or even "partially dead"? For instance, if a man has reached the statistical mid-point of the average life-span of a man, can we then say that he is "half-dead"?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2004 10:57 pm
twyvel wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
That's just idle word-play, twyvel, unless you mean to suggest that the "ego-though-body self" and the "unobserved observer" are contradictories.


No it's not word play.

OK, since you didn't address my point, I'll ask it directly: are you saying that the "ego-though-body self" and the "unobserved observer" are contradictories?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2004 11:04 pm
Re: If proposition and intention are mutually irreducible...
metaethics wrote:
Even what you call "perspective" may have a value or certain property, which can be called "a thing." A thing A with the property of goodness may exist at the same time the same entity A with the property of non-goodness does.

What does this mean?

Without question, I could say that a certain thing is both good for some reasons and not good for others. For instance, the statements "poinsettias are good for Christmas decorations" and "poinsettias are bad for cats to eat" can both be simultaneously true for poinsettias, but that equivalence depends on an equivocation: in those two statements, "good" has different meanings. What we can't assert, however, is that the contradictories "poinsettias are bad for cats to eat" and "poinsettias are good for cats to eat" are simultaneously true.
0 Replies
 
metaethics
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 12:52 am
Re: If proposition and intention are mutually irreducible...
joefromchicago wrote:
What we can't assert, however, is that the contradictories "poinsettias are bad for cats to eat" and "poinsettias are good for cats to eat" are simultaneously true.


I see.

I understand you meant that a thing cannot be good and bad at the same time in relation to particular someone or something, i.e., to the same cat (that's me in the picture) for the very same reason.

What if my friend Paula gives me a catnip? "Catnip is good for your soul" she says (in her proposition that is valid) and "Have a catnip for your good night sleep" she insists (with her intention that is sound). She has a valid and sound reason to give me a catnip, and although I consider her reasoning legitimate, I have no reason for myself to take it, whether it's good or bad for me.

Doesn't that catnip still exists on the table while I can't assert the goodness of it for my own reason? And isn't that a phenomenon of what you meant by "contradiction"? Help me please, I'm needing that catnip.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 11:10 am
truth
Joe, no. A man half-way through his life is not half dead; he's half dead throughout his life process, in the sense that his cells are in a continuous state of coming into being (Vishnu) and going out of being (Shiva). Indeed, dying cells must be sloughed off from the body or remain as necrotic matter.
If this is correct, life and death are two sides of the same coin, not only logically (viz., each makes no conceptual sense without the other) but also empirically (ontologically).
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 01:25 pm
joefromchicago

Quote:
OK, since you didn't address my point, I'll ask it directly: are you saying that the "ego-though-body self" and the "unobserved observer" are contradictories?


Yes and no.

You stated:

" A thing cannot simultaneously be both "A" and "not-A."
0 Replies
 
jonny
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 03:24 pm
twyvel-

I agree with joefromshicago. Perhaps you have shown that I am both a tangible and intangible thing, but this doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction unless you also show that having the property of being intangible is merely the lack of having the property of being tangible. Otherwise you have only shown that I have contrary properties, like being good and being bad, but not contradictory properties. Perhaps we can clear up the discussion by more precicely stating the law of non-contradiction. I offer:

For any object, x, and any property, A, x cannot both have A and not have A.

On a side note, there seems to be something paradoxical about saying of any object that it has the property of being non-objectified since if this was the case we couldn't ascribe properties to it at all because we can only ascribe properties to objects. (I might be missing something or confused on this point).
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:01 pm
Re: If proposition and intention are mutually irreducible...
metaethics wrote:
What if my friend Paula gives me a catnip? "Catnip is good for your soul" she says (in her proposition that is valid) and "Have a catnip for your good night sleep" she insists (with her intention that is sound). She has a valid and sound reason to give me a catnip, and although I consider her reasoning legitimate, I have no reason for myself to take it, whether it's good or bad for me.

I don't have a clue what you're trying to say here. But I think it's pretty clear that you're not even positing a pair of contradictories (i.e. you are not suggesting that "good for your soul" and "good for sleep" are equivalent to "A" and "not-A"). As such, since this doesn't relate to the initial query I offer no response.

metaethics wrote:
Doesn't that catnip still exists on the table while I can't assert the goodness of it for my own reason? And isn't that a phenomenon of what you meant by "contradiction"? Help me please, I'm needing that catnip.

The law of non-contradiction has nothing to do with the existence of the terms "A" and "not-A."
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:06 pm
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:
Joe, no. A man half-way through his life is not half dead; he's half dead throughout his life process, in the sense that his cells are in a continuous state of coming into being (Vishnu) and going out of being (Shiva). Indeed, dying cells must be sloughed off from the body or remain as necrotic matter.

A dead man is not the same thing as a dead cell. Thus the presence or absence of dead cells in a living body does not make the living body "dead," or even "partially dead," any more than the presence of fleas on a dog makes it "partially an insect" or the presence of e. coli in your gut makes you "partially bacteria," JLN.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:14 pm
twyvel wrote:
joefromchicago

Quote:
OK, since you didn't address my point, I'll ask it directly: are you saying that the "ego-though-body self" and the "unobserved observer" are contradictories?


Yes and no.

Your response does not "contradict my premise or my non-contradiction," it merely denies the possibility of contradiction (without, however, providing any evidence for that conclusion).

Jonny, then, is correct: you haven't offered any contradictories. I would, however, go further and say that you haven't even offered contraries. Your response is the equivalent of saying: "A thing can be simultaneously both 'A' and 'not-A,' where 'A' is defined as 'black' and 'not-A' is defined as 'tall.'" It is jejeune and vacuous word-play, nothing more.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:16 pm
truth
The man is a PROCESS, a process of continuous regeneration of cells. So in a sense he is the structured and dynamic collection of all that makes him up; in another sense--the sense that counts to you--he is also a social being with a social security number. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:29 pm
I like this arguement here.
0 Replies
 
Relative
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 04:36 pm
I admire all who have the imagination to argue A and not A.
And those who claim so must also admit that Joe is right when he tries to argue against them.
So all posts in this thread are stating truths.
Most of the posts are arguments, arguing against the truth of other posts, but if A and not A then there are _no_ arguments here. We all agree, therefore A and not A.
0 Replies
 
metaethics
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 07:40 pm
Re: If proposition and intention are mutually irreducible...
joefromchicago wrote:
metaethics wrote:
What if my friend Paula gives me a catnip? "Catnip is good for your soul" she says (in her proposition that is valid) and "Have a catnip for your good night sleep" she insists (with her intention that is sound). She has a valid and sound reason to give me a catnip, and although I consider her reasoning legitimate, I have no reason for myself to take it, whether it's good or bad for me.

I don't have a clue what you're trying to say here. But I think it's pretty clear that you're not even positing a pair of contradictories (i.e. you are not suggesting that "good for your soul" and "good for sleep" are equivalent to "A" and "not-A"). As such, since this doesn't relate to the initial query I offer no response.


No, I'm trying to say that it is contradictory for a catnip that it is good according to Paula's own reasoning, but the cat himself can't take that reasoning as his own, and therefore, the catnip (as a "thing A") has two properties, good (by Paula) and not good (according to the cat).

Paula's reasoning happened to have two sides, one in proposition "good for soul" and another her intention "good for your sleep," and those are mutually irreducible in (her) logic and both conform her legitimate reasoning of the goodness (of a catnip).
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 10:06 pm
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:
The man is a PROCESS, a process of continuous regeneration of cells. So in a sense he is the structured and dynamic collection of all that makes him up; in another sense--the sense that counts to you--he is also a social being with a social security number. Laughing

Is a "process" a "thing"?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 10:18 pm
Re: If proposition and intention are mutually irreducible...
metaethics wrote:
No, I'm trying to say that it is contradictory for a catnip that it is good according to Paula's own reasoning, but the cat himself can't take that reasoning as his own, and therefore, the catnip (as a "thing A") has two properties, good (by Paula) and not good (according to the cat).

No, those aren't contradictories. They aren't even contraries. As I mentioned before, this is merely a point-of-view problem.

Look at it this way: I stand next to an upright yardstick. It appears to be three feet tall. X stands 100 feet away. To X, the yardstick appears to be three inches tall. Can the yardstick, then, be both three feet tall and not three feet tall? Well, no, it can't. We can, however, say that the yardstick as it appears to X is not three feet tall. But then we cannot say that the yardstick as it appears to X is both three inches tall and not three inches tall.

metaethics wrote:
Paula's reasoning happened to have two sides, one in proposition "good for soul" and another her intention "good for your sleep," and those are mutually irreducible in (her) logic and both conform her legitimate reasoning of the goodness (of a catnip).

I must confess that this statement has me stumped. I have no idea what it means for two statements to be mutually irreducible. Are you saying that they are mutually irreconcilable?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 10:20 pm
Relative wrote:
I admire all who have the imagination to argue A and not A.
And those who claim so must also admit that Joe is right when he tries to argue against them.
So all posts in this thread are stating truths.
Most of the posts are arguments, arguing against the truth of other posts, but if A and not A then there are _no_ arguments here. We all agree, therefore A and not A.

Nicely stated, Relative. I think you're right.

Which, I suppose, means that I also think you're wrong.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 10:30 pm
truth
Joe, you ask if a process is a thing; my answer may not be satisfying, but here it is: All things are really processes. I am talking about a hypothetical man which you apparently see as a (hypothetical) thing (qua entity) and I am describing him as process. Just a matter of perspective.
0 Replies
 
metaethics
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 11:51 pm
Re: If proposition and intention are mutually irreducible...
joefromchicago wrote:
metaethics wrote:
two properties, good (by Paula) and not good (according to the cat).

No, those aren't contradictories. They aren't even contraries. As I mentioned before, this is merely a point-of-view problem.

metaethics wrote:
mutually irreducible

I must confess that this statement has me stumped. I have no idea what it means for two statements to be mutually irreducible. Are you saying that they are mutually irreconcilable?


As long as you see goodness as perceived value by those affected, other than intrinsic vale of the agent or the entity (in this case, a catnip), you woudn't see it as a contradiction. That's fine. Our discussion itself is a point-of-view problem.

I don't know off the top of my head good literature for "mutual irreducibility" but it means two things cannot be reduced to each other, and therefore factual goodness exists for the sake of proposition's validity and actional goodness exists for the sake of intention's soundness in their logical relations to each other. This is as mutually exclusive as the relation between de re and de dicto. Let's move on.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 07:11 am
Ever been happy and sad at the same time? Generally happy could be defined as not sad or sad as not happy.

But you can be both if you had to sacrifice something big and complex (status, wealth, friendships, love, honour, security health etc) to get or gain or retain something else that is also large and complex (i.e. same type of list as before).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Non-Contradiction
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 09:44:42