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.
Logic and philosophy do take that into account. For instance by pointing out that equivocation is a logical fallacy and a big no-no.
I can agree with that.If I may butt in, I think it doesn't lead anywhere to argue wether a contradictionary statement has "meaning" or not, becaue "meaning" is not a very percise term. Everyone understands it to mean something slightly different.
That could be the case but only if you regard a contradiction as true. But if you dont (ie you regard it as false) then these things don't follow.Cool and interesting link. Thank you!
It pretty much confirms my thoughts about the issue. This "explosion" is what I was describing as the collapse of logic: everything can mean anything. And since the primary premise and purpose of logic is distinguishability (is that even a word?), the fact that everything means everything comes down to "everything means nothing".
This "explosion" also allows for the conclusion that true things are false, and thereby throws your criterion "truth apt" out of the window.
My view is that if we were defining the use of A and as in "A is not A" thasn we would be in such trouble. But we are not defining the use of the term, or the initial meaning, we are already downstream of that. I will try and find a reference for whaty I mean if I can remember to, I have a book on Wittgenstein that mentions something like this IIRC.It allows for "illogicality can be logical" and therefore throws logic out the window.
It is the destruction of the very formal system it employs (no matter whether you call it "collapse" or "explosion" into meaninglessness not only of the symbols used explicitly in the contradiction but also of any symbols of the formal system employed).
I can accept that, I think at least it is a disputed area .On another note: Under "Addressing the principle" you find a great variety of approaches of dealing with this problem - and this variety demonstrates that your approach based on the definition you prefer is just one of several philosophical ways.
Who said it could? A in a contradiction eg "it is reaining" AND "it is not raining" then the truth value of the compound is regarded as false, not both true and false.And just because it caught my eye: Under "see also" you will find
- Law of noncontradiction no proposition can be both true and not true
I dont think that follows. It can assert contradictory things without us being compelled to accept those things at face value. For instanvce in a court room I may assert I was drunk but in full control of my senses, a contradiction. Now I think the jugde will have no trouble understanding what I have said, but he will not be compelled to regard it as both true and false. He will regard the whole os false, because both statements cannot be true at the same time, and for a conjunction to be true the elements in it must all be true.which is puts a huge question mark behind the definition of "proposition" you have offered: "This is black" cannot be true and not true ("this is not black"), and therefore (according to the the above definition "black can be non-black" is not a proposition).
It is not enough to just point it out. It has to be dealt with.
How do you handle the statement: "it is black, and yet is not black"? Just saying it is wrong is not enough. It could be right.
That could be the case but only if you regard a contradiction as true. But if you dont (ie you regard it as false) then these things don't follow.
No, a contradiction would be to say that you were drunk and not drunk at the same time. Saying you were A and B isn't a contradiction. Saying you were A and notA is. Big difference.For instanvce in a court room I may assert I was drunk but in full control of my senses, a contradiction.
It is presumed it you accept the LEM (law of excluded middle).Interesting you address the meaning of "A is notA" by assuming that it must be either have meaning or not.
I do not see how that follows actually. Maybe you would like to present an argument where the conclusion actually follows from premises. Please don't interpret this as me being ruse, I think it is standard practice in good philosophy and ought to be respected rather than frowned upon.But the whole point of the discussion is that a statement might be true and false simultaneously, if we follow the idea that A is notA is meaningful.
In ordinary logic at least, things are either true or flase, not both.So not only might his conclusion either follow or not, it is meaningful to say that it does both simultaneously. But you don't say that - you tell us it has to be one or the other.
Like I said, please instead of merely staing your conclusions try and argue a point logically.Seems like the idea is so crippling to meaningful discussion that you have to disregard it even to talk about it in the first place.
It would be a contradiction in that being drunk can imply not being in control of one's senses.No, a contradiction would be to say that you were drunk and not drunk at the same time. Saying you were A and B isn't a contradiction. Saying you were A and notA is. Big difference.
Merely false premises aren´t a problem for the system of logic. A merely false premise doesn´t explode or collapse the system. "A is not A" is beyond false - it is meaningless - which is reflected by the fact that accepting it for a premise will explode the system into meaninglessness.That could be the case but only if you regard a contradiction as true. But if you dont (ie you regard it as false) then these things don't follow.
I´m afraid I don´t understand what you are saying here. Could you please reword it for me?My view is that if we were defining the use of A and as in "A is not A" thasn we would be in such trouble. But we are not defining the use of the term, or the initial meaning, we are already downstream of that.
Again, this is not an example for what we are discussing here. It´s not a situation where one of the parts is the exact negation of the other. A statement of the sort we are discussing here would be "I was drunk and I was not drunk."I dont think that follows. It can assert contradictory things without us being compelled to accept those things at face value. For instanvce in a court room I may assert I was drunk but in full control of my senses, a contradiction.
Taking this for the essential message of your interesting post, I agree.Language isn't exact like that, but rather always depends on context and association.
Again, this is not an example for what we are discussing here. It´s not a situation where one of the parts is the exact negation of the other. A statement of the sort we are discussing here would be "I was drunk and I was not drunk."
Yea, what I'm curious about is what GS would think a phrase like "I am here and I am not here" means. What meaning do get from that, without equivocating.
It means "I am here and I am not here". Or, "I am at the present location and also not at the present location". To me that means something, which is why we can interpret it as a contradiction, which is a specific class of statement.Yea, what I'm curious about is what GS would think a phrase like "I am here and I am not here" means. What meaning do get from that, without equivocating.
It is presumed it you accept the LEM (law of excluded middle).
Should I use ordinary logic, or can I ignore the law of non-contradiction like you're selectively doing?In ordinary logic at least, things are either true or flase, not both.
Like I said, please instead of merely staing your conclusions try and argue a point logically.
Sometimes. Other times not. You'll have to show logically how these premises lead to a contradiction. But you're going to have a hard time deducing anything of the sort from "sometimes drunk people are in control, other times not".It would be a contradiction in that being drunk can imply not being in control of one's senses.
Wikipedia said:The term "analytic philosophy" can refer to:
- A general philosophical tradition[3][4] characterized by an emphasis on clarity and argument (often achieved via modern formal logic and analysis of language) and a respect for the natural sciences.[5][6][7]
Thanks for the info, GS.Quatona I looked into this book (A Wittgenstein Dictionary, Blackwell Publishers) on Wittgenstein, at the entry on contradictions:
Then it goes on to compare a contradiction to an illegal move in chess, like you have done."Contradiction:
For Wittgenstein, a contradiction like 'p.-p' (thats p and not-p btw) is on par with a tautology like -(p.-p) in that it is not nonsensical but senseless, because it says nothing...
...What logicians are afraid of are not contradictions per se, which have a legitimate role in reductio ad absurdum arguments, but violations of this rule (...which prohibits expressions like p.-p...) for example failure to withdraw a postulate which implies a contradiction."
KC I am still waiting for logical arguments rather than mere statements of opinion.
It means "I am here and I am not here". Or, "I am at the present location and also not at the present location". To me that means something, which is why we can interpret it as a contradiction, which is a specific class of statement.
Well what criterion are you after to acknowledge meaning. If it doesnt mean what it says, or if a rewording is not enough, what standard must be met?
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?