Why is there any response at all, to paradox?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

I am curious about this subject. Perhaps you can help.

Paradox is what I would define as, something that has contradictory premises, but which nevertheless has an internal consistency, in the absence of the need to debate those premises. In other words, as long as you are not discussing paradox, but just accepting it, paradox is as consistent as anything else, I suppose you would say, as some sort of effect of quantum indeterminacy, where the fact that you are not examining it means that it is what it needs to be, not what it must be.

So the question I have to ask is this, why is there any response to a paradox at all? If the only time a paradox is consistent is when you are not questioning it, why question it?

I hope you can help me with this question.

 

[Received]

I dunno. I don't think anything can have internal consistency if you don't have a line of reasoning. Paradox, to me, is a subjective contradiction that, if unwound to the point where you're seeing things as they really (objectively) are, there wouldn't be a contradiction at all. Paradox, IOW, is a failure of conceptualization applied to reasoning which, because we often know the answer without having to reason it out, we know isn't contradictory without quite being able to show how.

 

[digitalgoth]

Hi there,

I am curious about this subject. Perhaps you can help.

Paradox is what I would define as, something that has contradictory premises, but which nevertheless has an internal consistency, in the absence of the need to debate those premises. In other words, as long as you are not discussing paradox, but just accepting it, paradox is as consistent as anything else, I suppose you would say, as some sort of effect of quantum indeterminacy, where the fact that you are not examining it means that it is what it needs to be, not what it must be.

So the question I have to ask is this, why is there any response to a paradox at all? If the only time a paradox is consistent is when you are not questioning it, why question it?

I hope you can help me with this question.

par·a·dox


/ˈparəˌdäks/


noun

noun: paradox; plural noun: paradoxes




a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.
"a potentially serious conflict between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity known as the information paradox"



•a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.
"in a paradox, he has discovered that stepping back from his job has increased the rewards he gleans from it"


synonyms: contradiction, contradiction in terms, self-contradiction, inconsistency, incongruity; More
oxymoron;

conflict, anomaly;

enigma, puzzle, mystery, conundrum

"the paradox of war is that you have to kill people in order to stop people from killing each other"




•a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities.
"the mingling of deciduous trees with elements of desert flora forms a fascinating ecological paradox"



What you've "defined" as a paradox is the exact opposite of an actual paradox.

Accepting nonsense because thinking is hard is stupid. Would you accept your vehicle falling apart because it's "too hard" to fix it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The answer to your question is "because purple pixies".

Good day.

 

[quatona]

Hi there,

I am curious about this subject. Perhaps you can help.

Paradox is what I would define as, something that has contradictory premises, but which nevertheless has an internal consistency, in the absence of the need to debate those premises. In other words, as long as you are not discussing paradox, but just accepting it, paradox is as consistent as anything else, I suppose you would say, as some sort of effect of quantum indeterminacy, where the fact that you are not examining it means that it is what it needs to be, not what it must be.

So the question I have to ask is this, why is there any response to a paradox at all? If the only time a paradox is consistent is when you are not questioning it, why question it?

I hope you can help me with this question.

Can you give one or two examples, so we get an idea what it is that you are talking about?