On contradiction? It's quite obvious the contradictions that occur and cam develop further within ideas themselves that can unfold in a historical process, there's nuance in the various ways this has been described.

But concerning logical contradiction even this has been expanded on recently with some of the work from Graham Priest that he calls "dialetheism," in which some contradictions can be true. I guess if this thread has any legs I'll start it off with these two points.

Disprove that communists are retards? No.

>>24732894
>"It doesn't make sense for two contradictory propositions to be true at the same time."
For some definitions of 'contradictory', this is trivially true by definition.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/contradictory

>1. unable to be both true at the same time
>2. of words or propositions so related that both cannot be true and both cannot be false

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradictory

Noun form, but still:

>a proposition (see proposition entry 1 sense 2a) so related to another that if either of the two is true the other is false and if either is false the other must be true

>>24733003
That's a nice argument. But how do you feel about being a faggot?

Their own books. Hegel did not deny the law of contradiction and his logic is not about ordinary life and objects, not directly anyway, but thought itself. And Aristotle gets the ball rolling by sublating apparent contradictions left and right, he was a huge influence on Hegel.

>>24732894
Idea that the principle of non-contradiction doesnt quite hold up once self-referentiality gets involved is not exactly a crazy exotic idea, its just Russell's paradox or the liars paradox or the omnipotence paradox or Godel's incompleteness or whatever you want to call it.

Not saying those problems necessarily lead to dialectics as Hegel formulates it, but once you start working with self-referential abstract concepts (which is ultimately the domain Hegelian dialectics is concerned with, not really the application of those concepts in practice) the principle of non-contradiction is no longer an obvious given.

the principle of non-contradiction applies for objects, and abstractions of objects. That's why getting rid of it completely destroys all of mathematics and everything that rests on it, i.e. all of science. It doesn't apply for subjects, which is what anons ITT have already hinted at. Aristotle says as much when discussing substances (which are subjects), and how they can admit of contraries.

>>24733231
Why are these thinkers analytics for some reason?

>>24733405
But dont mathfags get into paraconsistent logic to skert the LNC

File: IMG_0697.jpg (158 KB, 640x916)

158 KB JPG

>>24732894