Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
P2.This:
P1: If one understands what is being said in a statement then the statement is meaningful.
P2: In contradictory statements one may understand what is being said (even though one may not believe it).
C: Therefore contradictory statements can be meaningful.
Therefore the statement "all contradictions are meaningless" is false.
Which do you reject P1 or P2 or both?
Well, saying it means what it says it not exactly helpful, is it? That way I could simply claim that that which you call "mindless gibberish" means what it says, as well.I do not have a rigorous definition of meaning to back this up, but I feel if someone says "A and not-A" then that phrase means precisely what it says i.e. A and not-A.
Completely different thing, no? Component 1 is not the direct negation of component 2. The sentence may imply a contradiction (based on your preconceptions about the subject), but it is not an example for "A and not A".For instance if someone says "I have a doctorate in logic but I am not particularly gifted at it" I can understand the meaning of the sentence, even if she is contradicting herself. Are you saying that if this sentence implies a contradiction then you do not actually understand what is being said?
You deny "in a contradictory statement one may understand what is said". Yet you know it is a contradiction. A contradiction is a proposition containing two incompatible meanings. However a proposition is defined as a meaningful declaritive sentence (here - wikipedia). I would add that a compound proposition is a series of propositions joined by connectives or operators. In fact this is corroborated by thte fact that contradictions are studied by propositional logic.P2.
(P1 comes with debatable premises itself, but that would be another can of worms)
A sentence is truth-apt if there is some context in which it could be uttered (with its present meaning) and express a true or false proposition
Read more: truth-apt: Definition from Answers.com
I dont think you have it right. If "non" etc have no meaning in a contradiction, then that would undermine the very basis for calling it a contradiction. Agreed?"Black can be non black" (an example given by Tiberius in the other thread) renders itself meaningless because it doesn´t allow for "black" (or even worse for "non") to have any meaning. It is simply the denial of respecting the most basic constituent of the formal system it employs, closely tied to the very purpose of this system: to create symbols that distinguish one concept from another.
Yes, and I know it from the mere structure. For to know that "öqwljr4 is not öqwljr4" is a contradiction I don´t even need any idea as to what "öqwljr4" is supposed to be. I know that it is a contradiction not from the content but from the form.You deny "in a contradictory statement one may understand what is said". Yet you know it is a contradiction.
I am, however, all the time about sentences of the "A = non A" (and not about proposition that require interpretation for to be called contradictions, i.e. a sentences that do not contain mere incompatible meanings but sentences of which one directly negates the other.A contradiction is a proposition containing two incompatible meanings.
For to know that "A = nonA" is a contradiction I don´t need to study it by propositional logic. It is the most basic axiom of logic that A is not non-A.However a proposition is defined as a meaningful declaritive sentence (here - wikipedia). And I would add that a compound proposition is a series of propositions joined by connectives or operators. In fact this is corroborated by thte fact that contradictions are studied by propositional logic.
And as I indicated before the truth-aspect of any of the parts or the whole is completely irrelevant because the very form of the sentence renders it logically illegitimate (i.e. meaningless).Also as I indicated before, contradictions are truth apt. therefore they are meaningful (see below)
That´s why I called this option "even worse".I dont think you have it right. If "non" etc have no meaning in a contradiction, then that would undermine the very basis for calling it a contradiction.
Well, saying it means what it says it not exactly helpful, is it? That way I could simply claim that that which you call "mindless gibberish" means what it says, as well.
"Black can be non black" (an example given by Tiberius in the other thread) renders itself meaningless because it doesn´t allow for "black" (or even worse for "non") to have any meaning. It is simply the denial of respecting the most basic constituent of the formal system it employs, closely tied to the very purpose of this system: to create symbols that distinguish one concept from another.
Completely different thing, no? Component 1 is not the direct negation of component 2. The sentence may imply a contradiction (based on your preconceptions about the subject), but it is not an example for "A and not A".
What you are doing there is the atttempt to establish an equivocation fallacy as a legitimate argument.Sorry for the interruption. (It seems whenever you give such an example, you are wrong.)
Black could have at least two meanings: Total absorption, or No radiation. So, this black may not be that black. And many "black" things may not be really "black".
That is why in addition to philosophy, you also need to know a little science. That gives extra meaning to a word in any language.
I have argued contradictions are not meaningful because they can not be understood, because they are not propositions (by virtue of the rules of the formal system they are made within) and they are not truth apt.Ok quatona I have argued contradictions are meaningful because they are understood, because they are propositions, and because they are truth apt. As far as I can recall, you have stated your conclusions (i.e. contradictions are meaningless) but have not actually provided premises logically supporting your conclusions. If I missed anything, sorry.
Thats NOT an arguemnt. Its a single statement. Well, it may be classed as an enthymeme (an argument wit absent premises) but I would like to see it reasoned through explicitally.Here´s the argument in short: Contradictions collapse the very formal system that they are made in and by the rules of which they can be considered meaningful, true, logically following etc.
As far as I know, that is also wrong. See the principle of explosion (logic).It would be interesting to know if a statement of the "A=nonA" would be acceptable as a premise for a logical deduction. I don´t think it is.
This:
P1: If one understands what is being said in a statement then the statement is meaningful.
P2: In contradictory statements one may understand what is being said (even though one may not believe it).
C: Therefore contradictory statements can be meaningful.
Therefore the statement "all contradictions are meaningless" is false.
Which do you reject P1 or P2 or both?
As is your summary of your "argument".Thats NOT an arguemnt. Its a single statement.
Well, I could follow your example and find some definitions that define my understanding of "meaning" correct - but I find that boring. For me it´s more about contemplating and investigating concepts than semantic proofs.Well, it may be classed as an enthymeme (an argument wit absent premises) but I would like to see it reasoned through explicitally.
I am afraid I can´t do that because the most basic axioms of logic are involved. That´s my very point. "A is not non-A" is the most basic axiom of logic. The explicit denial of this axiom throws you out of the realm of logic.In any case (although I wuold still like to see your "collapse" argument in complete a more complete form)
Great, you have found one doctionary that says so. There are many philosoophies out there, and one single dictionary claim certainly doesn´t cover all the philosophical approaches that are out there.In any case AFAIK in logic a contradiction is regarded as being false:
"(Philosophy / Logic) Logic a statement that is false under all circumstances; necessary falsehood" contradiction - definition of contradiction by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Translation: "Contradictory is the term for a relation of two statements in which from the correctness (truthfulness) of one of them can be concluded on the incorrectness (falsehood) of the other."Kontradiktorisch (widersprüchlich) wird eine Beziehung zweier Aussagen genannt, bei der von der Wahrheit der einen Aussage auf die Falschheit der anderen geschlossen werden kann und – das ist wichtig – von der Falschheit der einen Aussage auf die Wahrheit der anderen.
Cool and interesting link. Thank you!As far as I know, that is also wrong. See the principle of explosion (logic).
Well what do you expect to be there for a meaning to be there? I am not sure how well the concept of meaning is defined actually, but we might do well to look at what is thought to be necessary and sufficient for a phrase to be meaningful. So please give us some criteria...
This:
P1: If one understands what is being said in a statement then the statement is meaningful.
P2: In contradictory statements one may understand what is being said (even though one may not believe it).
C: Therefore contradictory statements can be meaningful.
Therefore the statement "all contradictions are meaningless" is false.
Which do you reject P1 or P2 or both?
What you are doing there is the atttempt to establish an equivocation fallacy as a legitimate argument.
I did not create the equivocation. Look up the dictionary of any language. Nearly every word has multiple meanings. Should philosophy and logic also take that into account, rather than pick one and assume the other meanings do not exist?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?