Any books that disprove this meme?
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 falsehttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradictoryNoun 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
>>24733003That'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.
>>24732894Idea 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.
>>24733231Why are these thinkers analytics for some reason?
>>24733405But dont mathfags get into paraconsistent logic to skert the LNC
>>24732894
>>24733433outside of mathematical logic itself, I guess only for specific applications in specialized contexts. everything else needs it. though I'd imagine paraconsistent logic might open up something new in the near future, like how complex analysis became a thing once mathematicians decided to extend the reals by creating the 'imaginary' unit i = sqrt(-1) and the complex plane and found a billion new applications.
>>24733439then why do their approximates to their lim->x keep showing up in nature?
>>24733601neetche's worst subject was math so I don't blame him for showing his ressentiment against the eternal language of reality.
>>24733439Damn, Nietzsche was a pseud. The Greeks talk all the time about how perfect shapes don't exist in nature.
>>24733637This is the exact example Saint Augustine gives for thinking the act of understanding involved participation in the Logos, although he uses a triangle and the lack of any perfect triangles.
>>24733605It's a shame he could not have read how Gödel used arithmetic axioms and set theory to "this statement is false" in said axioms and especially that multiplicative axioms a still tautologicalHe would have had a giggle
>>24732894I guess it can be true if you believe in the unproven, wacky theory of quantum mechanics, but that's a leap not many serious a person are willing to take.>>24733439He was on to something, if only a bit too late. 130 years after Hume, and a couple thousand after Protagoras. Indeed, there's no humanly account for universals other than through belief in God.
>>24732894The Very Hungry Caterpillar
>>24732894can someone post the one that looks like this but its like german "enlightenment" and it says murder is bad
>>24733439I think I agree with this. If you ever want to doubt any conventional logic or knowledge or "understanding" just watch presuppositionalists debate, youll realize how many convenient baked in assumptions are in "logic" that can be utilized any which arbitrary way.Anyway as a result of watching presups debate, I had this idea that maybe contradictions fundamentally dont make sense, that theyre not real. What I mean is: For contradictions to arise, they have to be created.You have to essentially create an imaginary situation where "The moon exists and does not exist" can make sense, while DELIBERATELY ignoring all the ways in real life that such a statement could be explained and understood.Dont know if anybody has brought this up in academia, my thought seems to simple that I imagine people have already addressed this, but at the same time, I then dont understand still the obsesseion with the Law of Non Contradiction, beyond addressing cognitive dissonance as a psychological phenomenon, or consistency for normative principles.Like just because I think contradictions might not be real, doesnt mean I think it is reasonable for somebody to have a double standard where they value the most competent and accomplished person applying for their firm, but won't accept them because theyre black or something
