Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

We Must Make Peace With Contradiction

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 9:36:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The individual sees contradiction and says it must not be. He, or she, attempts to explain it away or suppress it. This is true regardless of the individual's lot in life. It is common among the poor and the rich, the religious and the secular, the person of little education and the person of much education. Among the religious, it is seen as an evil that needs to be eradicated; among the secular, it is seen as an error in one's ability to reason; among those of little education, it is dismissed as trifling or bothersome; and, among those of much education, complex, elaborate formulas are created to denounce it as heresy.

However, in each and every situation, it is seen; it is dealt with, at times, sternly; but, no matter how fiercely one wages a war against it, does it ever go away. In fact, it grows in numbers ever larger; it becomes more defined and takes on greater meaning.

The individual must make peace with contradiction; he, or she, must see paradox as one with reality. As long as he, or she, is set against it, there remains a division. It is in a spirit of agreement, conflict is laid to rest.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 3:25:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A paradox does not blow up the universe, incur God's wrath, or require that you "make peace with it". All it means is that you've made an incorrect assumption about whatever it is you're dealing with. Let's cut the Deepak Chopra shiit, please.
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:46:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Agreed. After all, the individual is composed of contradictions.
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 8:36:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A paradox does not blow up the universe, incur God's wrath, or require that you "make peace with it". All it means is that you've made an incorrect assumption about whatever it is you're dealing with. Let's cut the Deepak Chopra shiit, please.

This is, exactly, the attitude to which I'm referring. It's not enough to merely say I've made an incorrect assumption; you must continue by taking it personally.

Now, onto the incorrect assumption. Incorrect assumptions are a part of life. In fact, they are not only a part of life they are needed to build one's identity. Sometimes, they are incorrect and, sometimes, they are correct. It is one that gives meaning to the other. You can say this is not true and denounce it as absolutely false by saying, "That which is incorrect is absolutely incorrect, and in no ways is it correct!". However, that is a denial of reality. If that which was incorrect were in no ways correct, then, it would never be correct. Further to say something is incorrect without the possibility of being correct is pointless and meaningless.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 8:42:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:46:39 AM, Material_Girl wrote:
Agreed. After all, the individual is composed of contradictions.

I know. It's funny. We have absolutists who call themselves relativists, but only as it suits them.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 8:51:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:46:39 AM, Material_Girl wrote:
Agreed. After all, the individual is composed of contradictions.

But, then again, we have relativists that call themselves absolutists.... I'm so confused!
Burls
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:28:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree that at the center of things is an ambiguity that I must accept.

Such as the ambiguity in my modus operandi:

An unassigned supportive element within the matrix wherein children play, where assignments are the bite that dogs us.
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 1:33:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If something is, it is.

If something is not, it is not.

If something is not it is not not not.

If something is it is not not.

I could cross multiply things to infinity and beyond but it's about even and odd uses of the term 'not'.
Best wishes,
user-name.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:19:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is exactly what philosophy should not be...unrigorous and basically content-free.

A philosopher must be a lover of the truth, at any cost, those truths he, or she, likes and those truths that are. The truth knows no specific domain; it is not restricted by space and time. It transcends ourselves, and it is ourselves. The truth is that which is and that which isn't; it is both real and unreal, true and false, existent and nonexistent.

The statement, "That which is, is that which isn't," is a true statement. If something exists, it must not exist, also. To say, "That which is false does not exist," is a contradiction. For, in the first part of the statement, you are saying falsehood exists by predicating it with the state of being verb is; then, in the latter half of the statement, you say it does not exist.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 6:04:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:19:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
This is exactly what philosophy should not be...unrigorous and basically content-free.

A philosopher must be a lover of the truth, at any cost, those truths he, or she, likes and those truths that are. The truth knows no specific domain; it is not restricted by space and time. It transcends ourselves, and it is ourselves. The truth is that which is and that which isn't; it is both real and unreal, true and false, existent and nonexistent.

The statement, "That which is, is that which isn't," is a true statement. If something exists, it must not exist, also. To say, "That which is false does not exist," is a contradiction. For, in the first part of the statement, you are saying falsehood exists by predicating it with the state of being verb is; then, in the latter half of the statement, you say it does not exist.

A case in point.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:05:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 8:36:55 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A paradox does not blow up the universe, incur God's wrath, or require that you "make peace with it". All it means is that you've made an incorrect assumption about whatever it is you're dealing with. Let's cut the Deepak Chopra shiit, please.

This is, exactly, the attitude to which I'm referring. It's not enough to merely say I've made an incorrect assumption; you must continue by taking it personally.

I just think it's rude of you to verbally jack off where everybody else can see it. The least you could do is give your thread a point, so that we see verbal penetration instead.

Now, onto the incorrect assumption. Incorrect assumptions are a part of life. In fact, they are not only a part of life they are needed to build one's identity. Sometimes, they are incorrect and, sometimes, they are correct. It is one that gives meaning to the other. You can say this is not true and denounce it as absolutely false by saying, "That which is incorrect is absolutely incorrect, and in no ways is it correct!". However, that is a denial of reality. If that which was incorrect were in no ways correct, then, it would never be correct. Further to say something is incorrect without the possibility of being correct is pointless and meaningless.

Like this, for example. Now you're verbally tugging a softie. It's pathetic.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:12:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:05:53 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:36:55 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A paradox does not blow up the universe, incur God's wrath, or require that you "make peace with it". All it means is that you've made an incorrect assumption about whatever it is you're dealing with. Let's cut the Deepak Chopra shiit, please.

This is, exactly, the attitude to which I'm referring. It's not enough to merely say I've made an incorrect assumption; you must continue by taking it personally.

I just think it's rude of you to verbally jack off where everybody else can see it. The least you could do is give your thread a point, so that we see verbal penetration instead.

My point is logic is meaningless without paradox. Just because you don't like it or agree with it doesn't make it an illegitimate argument. Contradiction, and opposition, exists regardless of your likes and dislikes.


Now, onto the incorrect assumption. Incorrect assumptions are a part of life. In fact, they are not only a part of life they are needed to build one's identity. Sometimes, they are incorrect and, sometimes, they are correct. It is one that gives meaning to the other. You can say this is not true and denounce it as absolutely false by saying, "That which is incorrect is absolutely incorrect, and in no ways is it correct!". However, that is a denial of reality. If that which was incorrect were in no ways correct, then, it would never be correct. Further to say something is incorrect without the possibility of being correct is pointless and meaningless.

Like this, for example. Now you're verbally tugging a softie. It's pathetic.

My point exactly.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:34:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:12:03 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:05:53 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:36:55 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A paradox does not blow up the universe, incur God's wrath, or require that you "make peace with it". All it means is that you've made an incorrect assumption about whatever it is you're dealing with. Let's cut the Deepak Chopra shiit, please.

This is, exactly, the attitude to which I'm referring. It's not enough to merely say I've made an incorrect assumption; you must continue by taking it personally.

I just think it's rude of you to verbally jack off where everybody else can see it. The least you could do is give your thread a point, so that we see verbal penetration instead.

My point is logic is meaningless without paradox. Just because you don't like it or agree with it doesn't make it an illegitimate argument. Contradiction, and opposition, exists regardless of your likes and dislikes.


And reality is meaningless without non-reality. Does that mean non-reality is real? If it's real, then it's not really non-reality, and thus reality is meaningless.


Now, onto the incorrect assumption. Incorrect assumptions are a part of life. In fact, they are not only a part of life they are needed to build one's identity. Sometimes, they are incorrect and, sometimes, they are correct. It is one that gives meaning to the other. You can say this is not true and denounce it as absolutely false by saying, "That which is incorrect is absolutely incorrect, and in no ways is it correct!". However, that is a denial of reality. If that which was incorrect were in no ways correct, then, it would never be correct. Further to say something is incorrect without the possibility of being correct is pointless and meaningless.

Like this, for example. Now you're verbally tugging a softie. It's pathetic.

My point exactly.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:41:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We must not make peace with contradiction, but rather fight the intellectual battle. To make peace is lazy, and quit simply is just a "fvck you" to reason and logic.
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:44:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:41:47 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
We must not make peace with contradiction, but rather fight the intellectual battle. To make peace is lazy, and quit simply is just a "fvck you" to reason and logic.

Don't even try to reason with him.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:45:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:44:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:41:47 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
We must not make peace with contradiction, but rather fight the intellectual battle. To make peace is lazy, and quit simply is just a "fvck you" to reason and logic.

Don't even try to reason with him.

I'd argue its hard to reason with someone who doesn't accept the Law of Non-Contradiction lol...
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:46:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:45:28 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:44:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:41:47 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
We must not make peace with contradiction, but rather fight the intellectual battle. To make peace is lazy, and quit simply is just a "fvck you" to reason and logic.

Don't even try to reason with him.

I'd argue its hard to reason with someone who doesn't accept the Law of Non-Contradiction lol...

All of his posts are the same useless "It's not what it seems!" trash.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 10:11:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:12:03 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:05:53 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:36:55 AM, s-anthony wrote:
A paradox does not blow up the universe, incur God's wrath, or require that you "make peace with it". All it means is that you've made an incorrect assumption about whatever it is you're dealing with. Let's cut the Deepak Chopra shiit, please.

This is, exactly, the attitude to which I'm referring. It's not enough to merely say I've made an incorrect assumption; you must continue by taking it personally.

I just think it's rude of you to verbally jack off where everybody else can see it. The least you could do is give your thread a point, so that we see verbal penetration instead.

My point is logic is meaningless without paradox. Just because you don't like it or agree with it doesn't make it an illegitimate argument. Contradiction, and opposition, exists regardless of your likes and dislikes.

You're not making an argument at all. You're just talking shiit in the hopes that other people will think you're smart.


Now, onto the incorrect assumption. Incorrect assumptions are a part of life. In fact, they are not only a part of life they are needed to build one's identity. Sometimes, they are incorrect and, sometimes, they are correct. It is one that gives meaning to the other. You can say this is not true and denounce it as absolutely false by saying, "That which is incorrect is absolutely incorrect, and in no ways is it correct!". However, that is a denial of reality. If that which was incorrect were in no ways correct, then, it would never be correct. Further to say something is incorrect without the possibility of being correct is pointless and meaningless.

Like this, for example. Now you're verbally tugging a softie. It's pathetic.

My point exactly.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 10:22:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And reality is meaningless without non-reality. Does that mean non-reality is real? If it's real, then it's not really non-reality, and thus reality is meaningless.

Reality is indeed meaningless without that which is unreal. If you were only to know that which is real and not that which is unreal, what sense would it make in saying, "This is real"?

That which is unreal is also real. If that which is real exists and that which is unreal does not exist, why do we attribute existence to that which is unreal? In other words, why do we give it being? You may say that is, merely, an issue of semantics; but, in doing so, that does not make it go away. Whether, or not, it exists only in our minds, it still has existence, being, and reality. It is real to us, and we live our lives according to this reality. If that which were unreal had not at the core of its being reality, it could never become real; in other words, reality would remain static; it would be changeless. A thing must have potential for becoming something entirely different if it is to become different. To say that which is real is always real and that which is unreal is always unreal is to say the universe is dead.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 10:38:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You're not making an argument at all. You're just talking shiit in the hopes that other people will think you're smart.

If I'm talking nonsense, knowing it is nonsense, what sense would it make for me to think it makes me look smart? Do you think nonsense makes you look smart?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 10:49:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We must not make peace with contradiction, but rather fight the intellectual battle. To make peace is lazy, and quit simply is just a "fvck you" to reason and logic.

So, if you're not trying to make peace, then, why are you fighting? Is it, merely, for the sake of conflict and war?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 11:05:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 10:49:11 PM, s-anthony wrote:
We must not make peace with contradiction, but rather fight the intellectual battle. To make peace is lazy, and quit simply is just a "fvck you" to reason and logic.

So, if you're not trying to make peace, then, why are you fighting? Is it, merely, for the sake of conflict and war?

For the sake of truth.
Nolite Timere
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 11:59:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 10:38:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
You're not making an argument at all. You're just talking shiit in the hopes that other people will think you're smart.

If I'm talking nonsense, knowing it is nonsense, what sense would it make for me to think it makes me look smart? Do you think nonsense makes you look smart?

If you make anything complicated enough, people will assume you're smart for understanding it. This is called the "argument from verbosity" fallacy. Here's the test: if you remove the fancy rhetoric and repetition, are you actually saying anything?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 7:56:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you make anything complicated enough, people will assume you're smart for understanding it. This is called the "argument from verbosity" fallacy. Here's the test: if you remove the fancy rhetoric and repetition, are you actually saying anything?

Please do not tell me this is your argument. Just because something may appear complicated to you doesn't make it false. It's a very sad thing if as confronted with things you don't understand you automatically declare them as "false". It reminds me of "The Fox and the Grapes": "It is easy to despise what you cannot get."
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 8:02:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You ignored me before:

At 10/21/2014 1:33:39 PM, user_name wrote:
If something is, it is.

If something is not, it is not.


If something is not it is not not not.

If something is it is not not.

I could cross multiply things to infinity and beyond but it's about even and odd uses of the term 'not'.
Best wishes,
user-name.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 8:03:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 11:05:49 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/21/2014 10:49:11 PM, s-anthony wrote:
We must not make peace with contradiction, but rather fight the intellectual battle. To make peace is lazy, and quit simply is just a "fvck you" to reason and logic.

So, if you're not trying to make peace, then, why are you fighting? Is it, merely, for the sake of conflict and war?

For the sake of truth.

And, you believe truth is one-sided. Ok. I get it.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 8:16:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 8:02:20 AM, user_name wrote:
You ignored me before:

At 10/21/2014 1:33:39 PM, user_name wrote:
If something is, it is.

If something is not, it is not.


If something is not it is not not not.

If something is it is not not.

I could cross multiply things to infinity and beyond but it's about even and odd uses of the term 'not'.

Sorry. I was a little confused as to the direction you were going with this. From that which I got out of it, it appears you're using semantics to show using the same group of words one can mean two entirely different things. I hope this is correct. If not, let me know.
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 8:17:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 8:16:47 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/22/2014 8:02:20 AM, user_name wrote:
You ignored me before:

At 10/21/2014 1:33:39 PM, user_name wrote:
If something is, it is.

If something is not, it is not.


If something is not it is not not not.

If something is it is not not.

I could cross multiply things to infinity and beyond but it's about even and odd uses of the term 'not'.

Sorry. I was a little confused as to the direction you were going with this. From that which I got out of it, it appears you're using semantics to show using the same group of words one can mean two entirely different things. I hope this is correct. If not, let me know.

No. I was tearing apart your OP and forum title in a simple explanation.
Best wishes,
user-name.