| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Anthony G. Rubino" |
| Date: |
28 Oct 2006 01:22:19 PM |
| Object: |
Foundation of Paradox and Contradiction |
Everyone without exception believes what is is.
Anyone who claims to disagree believes what is not is what is, - which
is a restatement of the first principle from a negative perspective.
X is.
X = What is not.
(What is not) is.
What is is what is not.
The negation of what is is the foundation of paradox and contradiction.
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
.
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: Foundation of Paradox and Contradiction |
29 Oct 2006 12:30:22 AM |
|
|
"Anthony G. Rubino" <TRISECTOR@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24626-45439FDB-612@storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net...
Everyone without exception believes what is is.
Anyone who claims to disagree believes what is not is what is, - which
is a restatement of the first principle from a negative perspective.
X is.
X = What is not.
(What is not) is.
What is is what is not.
The negation of what is is the foundation of paradox and contradiction.
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
is a restatement of the first principle from a negative perspective.
Per the above logic, a partial agreement is presupposed. If the logic is
inverted, an agreement has been reached when "what is" is what is.
X is .
X = What is.
(What is) is.
In both cases X is, so in order for the above logic to make sense, the two
parties have to agree on something to begin with. (X is something)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony G. Rubino" |
|
| Title: Re: Foundation of Paradox and Contradiction |
29 Oct 2006 08:38:00 AM |
|
|
Anthony G. Rubino wrote:
Everyone without exception believes
what is is.
Anyone who claims to disagree believes
what is not is what is, - which is a
restatement of the first principle from a
negative perspective.
X is.
X = What is not.
(What is not) is.
What is is what is not.
The negation of what is is the foundation
of paradox and contradiction.
xyz wrote:
Per the above logic, a partial agreement
is presupposed. If the logic is inverted,
an agreement has been reached when
"what is" is what is.
X is .
X = What is.
(What is) is.
In both cases X is, so in order for the
above logic to make sense, the two
parties have to agree on something to
begin with. (X is something)
What you say supports the stated position, except with regard to the
amount of agreement involved.
The initial statement explicitly asserts universal agreement.
The second statement asserts that explicit disagreements still contain
the implicit agreement referred to in the first statement.
If the first assertion is a negation, then, you get an unavoidable
contradiction.
X is not
X = what is
(what is) is not.
The question of whether X is, or is not, then becomes what is X ?,
rather than is there an X ?.
To assert X, necessarily implies it is.
To assert X is, is redundant, but it emphasizes some existence of X.
To negate X is a contradiction, unless that negation is applied to some
aspect of X other than its existence, in which case it is more of a
disagreement than a contradiction.
i.e.,
X is not here. X is there.
X is not objective: it is subjective.
X is not subjective: it is objective.
Without agreement that X has a referent: All arguments regarding the
existence of X by two or more people, regardless of who starts the
argument, can be reduced to the repetitive form:
X is. X is not. - Is. Isn't. - etc.
which easily degrade to ad hominems, or even violence.
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Foundation of Paradox and Contradiction |
29 Oct 2006 08:29:08 AM |
|
|
"Anthony G. Rubino" <TRISECTOR@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24626-45439FDB-612@storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net...
Everyone without exception believes what is is.
Anyone who claims to disagree believes what is not is what is, - which
is a restatement of the first principle from a negative perspective.
X is.
X = What is not.
(What is not) is.
What is is what is not.
The negation of what is is the foundation of paradox and contradiction.
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
That sounds like a mantra to the godess ISIS. :-)
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "zinnic" |
|
| Title: Re: Foundation of Paradox and Contradiction |
29 Oct 2006 12:50:35 AM |
|
|
Anthony G. Rubino wrote:
Everyone without exception believes what is is.
Anyone who claims to disagree believes what is not is what is, - which
is a restatement of the first principle from a negative perspective.
I disagree that to disagree with "what is" is a restatement of
anything. It is purely a contradiction without a vestige of paradox.
Zinnic
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony G. Rubino" |
|
| Title: Re: Foundation of Paradox and Contradiction |
29 Oct 2006 09:09:05 AM |
|
|
Zinnic wrote:
I disagree that to disagree with "what is"
is a restatement of anything. It is purely
a contradiction without a vestige of
paradox.
That depends on the nature of the disagreement.
That is to say, that:
I agree with your disagreement in some contexts.
or,
I disagree with, or negate, your assertion in some contexts.
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
