medicine forum beginner
Joined: 16 May 2005
|Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 12:25 am Post subject:
Cognitive Dissonant Oxymoron: "Dictatorship of Relativi
wrote in message
wrote in message
simply replying to your post for it was the last in the thread. I'm not
sure whether you've followed our complex (futile) philosophical
discussions of late, so the next random thoughts are for those who have.
mean futile in the sense that why the heck should we call words truths or
lies, especially if we don't know what 'truth' or 'lie' is (and for
whom:). What we know for sure is that all words are words, and then we
can look up a dictionary what the word 'word' really means. Not that it
will be of any help, though, I for one have consulted many of them
much success, i.e. was unable to find out the ultimate truth about them
Anyway, here is another description of the "lies" problem from the point
of view of the ancient debate between skepticism and scholasticism. When
recalled the various claims made by Tom and Jeremy (usually starting with
"If all words are lies, then...") I noticed a similar pattern. In all
those composite statements/theorems it was fairly easy to reach some
logical contradictions. In principle, from a purely logical point of view
that might be good news for those who'd like to falsify it, for it tends
to suggest that perhaps indeed there's something wrong with "all words
lies". The irony is that it could have been the case, perhaps with any
other belief, but not this one. For this one is way too special (or
general:) - it is so generic, so close to the root of the matrix, that it
is beyond the reach of logic. Why?
When saying previously that we cannot approach "all words are lies"
logically I meant that it is like a base axioms, the fundamental brick in
the edifice of logic. It deals with or questions the very existence of
'true', and therefore of logic itself. Applying logic on it means to
assume already that logic is there (real:), i.e to negate it from the
outset, by assumption, before we have even started reasoning .
In practical terms, to try to negate a statement by means of logic would
mean to incorporate it as a building block into some composite claims. As
in the already famous series of theorems: "If all words were lies,
then..." However, precisely that is the (dishonest:) trick of the
scholastic, because by 'merely' doing that he already assumes that it is
wrong. In other words, from then on we are bound to reach a contradiction
whatever we say. On the other hand, if the logician were honest he'd
immediately realize and admit that this fundamental belief (disbelief
actually:) is not amenable to logical manipulations, for it robs us of
very tool of logic - the concept of true. "If all words are lies,
we cannot make any true statement, cannot find any true continuation, any
right conclusion (not even the one just reached:).
For a more graphical depiction of the inapplicability of logic to the
matter at hand let instead of All words were lies take its ancient
precursor There is no Truth (in words, at least:). Then we can see (more
clearly:) how the logician tried to fox us: by merely assuming he was
right. His beloved assumption creeps in through the back door, through
very definition of a 'true' If/Then statement. And if we weren't aware of
its exact definition we might have believed him, basically that's all
there is to the power of persuasion (choosing the right words so you
get caught:). The cunning situation is as follows:
If all words are lies, then...
After noticing the relation to the original skeptics-dogmatists debate:
If there is no truth, then...
Which in logic translates finally into:
If [there is no truth] is true, then... :)
We're hit by a sudden realization: the contradiction was always there
the outset, built into the assumption, into the very act of assuming
something is true:). Which of course contradicts our initial belief, so
anything we say next won't conceal that fact, we're bound to reach a
contradiction. The simultaneous existence and nonexistence of truth are
built into it and that's the only possible conclusion (i.e.
logic can eventually lead us to, no matter how simple or involved the
following arguments may become. So that was the whole trick of Logic, It
effectively said "If there is no true were true, then..". But who would
accept such nonsense, hence, different words were chosen (like "If all
words are lies, then.."), carefully, so as to disguise the fact of..
cheating:). In other words, all those theorems we've seen (including the
line above) amounted to saying: If it is wrong, then... it is wrong :)
What a huge pack of lies! Right down to the words "Best" and "Ann".
believe any of it.
She sure talks a lot, doesn't she? One would think she *likes* lying,
all the lies she tells.
### - unfortunately tom, your 'good' argument has already descended into
name-calling (which isn't even very logical :)
and no-one's much interested in that kind of thing here...
have a good Saturn-day folks, it's Sun-day tomorrow and then Moon-day after
(i mean, sheesh... what a planet!
The time now is Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:57 am | All times are GMT
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
email marketing campaigns ,
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group