Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking
Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking
Aristotle had his faults. Am I against Aristotle? No. Am I for him? No. Why? Example:
The laws of logic applied to themselves result in the negation of said laws. If the law of excluded middle is applied to the law of identity (equality) and the law of non-contradiction (inequality) then either the law of identity is true and non-contradiction is false or the law of identity is false and the law of non-contradiction is true.
1. If the law of identity is true and the law of non-contradiction is false then A=A but A=-A in which case A equals everything thus is meaningless.
2. If the law of identity is false and the law of non-contradiction is true then A=/=A and A=/=-A in which case A equals nothing thus is meaningless.
3. In one respect A equals everything and in another respect A equals nothing, dependent upon the choice made because of the 'or' operator of excluded middle. Either way A is meaningless as everything is without compare thus has no distinctions therefore is nothing; nothing is without distinctions thus is inseparable from everything as there are no distinctions to separate the two.
Now as to why I don't disagree with Aristotle:
All the laws exist as the manifestation of distinctions, and even though distinctions result in contradictions (as one thing must stand apart from another thing to gain identity), these distinctions stand nonetheless as they form our reality regardless of if they make sense or not. They are what they are and to negate them requires one to first observe them and this act of observation of a thing, regardless of its level of truth, necessitates existence through observation alone.
The laws of logic applied to themselves result in the negation of said laws. If the law of excluded middle is applied to the law of identity (equality) and the law of non-contradiction (inequality) then either the law of identity is true and non-contradiction is false or the law of identity is false and the law of non-contradiction is true.
1. If the law of identity is true and the law of non-contradiction is false then A=A but A=-A in which case A equals everything thus is meaningless.
2. If the law of identity is false and the law of non-contradiction is true then A=/=A and A=/=-A in which case A equals nothing thus is meaningless.
3. In one respect A equals everything and in another respect A equals nothing, dependent upon the choice made because of the 'or' operator of excluded middle. Either way A is meaningless as everything is without compare thus has no distinctions therefore is nothing; nothing is without distinctions thus is inseparable from everything as there are no distinctions to separate the two.
Now as to why I don't disagree with Aristotle:
All the laws exist as the manifestation of distinctions, and even though distinctions result in contradictions (as one thing must stand apart from another thing to gain identity), these distinctions stand nonetheless as they form our reality regardless of if they make sense or not. They are what they are and to negate them requires one to first observe them and this act of observation of a thing, regardless of its level of truth, necessitates existence through observation alone.
-
- Posts: 4369
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking
Aristotle's best student conquered the world...
-Imp
-Imp
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm
Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking
I don't understand your argument as to why both laws cannot be simultaneously true.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 9:18 pm Aristotle had his faults. Am I against Aristotle? No. Am I for him? No. Why? Example:
The laws of logic applied to themselves result in the negation of said laws. If the law of excluded middle is applied to the law of identity (equality) and the law of non-contradiction (inequality) then either the law of identity is true and non-contradiction is false or the law of identity is false and the law of non-contradiction is true.
1. If the law of identity is true and the law of non-contradiction is false then A=A but A=-A in which case A equals everything thus is meaningless.
2. If the law of identity is false and the law of non-contradiction is true then A=/=A and A=/=-A in which case A equals nothing thus is meaningless.
3. In one respect A equals everything and in another respect A equals nothing, dependent upon the choice made because of the 'or' operator of excluded middle. Either way A is meaningless as everything is without compare thus has no distinctions therefore is nothing; nothing is without distinctions thus is inseparable from everything as there are no distinctions to separate the two.
Which part of Aristotle's corpus is your critique considering?
Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking
The laws of logic applied to themselves result in the negation of said laws. If the law of excluded middle is applied to the law of identity (equality) and the law of non-contradiction (inequality) then either the law of identity is true and non-contradiction is false or the law of identity is false and the law of non-contradiction is true.Leontiskos wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 12:12 amI don't understand your argument as to why both laws cannot be simultaneously true.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 9:18 pm Aristotle had his faults. Am I against Aristotle? No. Am I for him? No. Why? Example:
The laws of logic applied to themselves result in the negation of said laws. If the law of excluded middle is applied to the law of identity (equality) and the law of non-contradiction (inequality) then either the law of identity is true and non-contradiction is false or the law of identity is false and the law of non-contradiction is true.
1. If the law of identity is true and the law of non-contradiction is false then A=A but A=-A in which case A equals everything thus is meaningless.
2. If the law of identity is false and the law of non-contradiction is true then A=/=A and A=/=-A in which case A equals nothing thus is meaningless.
3. In one respect A equals everything and in another respect A equals nothing, dependent upon the choice made because of the 'or' operator of excluded middle. Either way A is meaningless as everything is without compare thus has no distinctions therefore is nothing; nothing is without distinctions thus is inseparable from everything as there are no distinctions to separate the two.
Which part of Aristotle's corpus is your critique considering?
Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking
And lost it after he died....
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm
Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking
So the law of the excluded middle does not apply to just any arbitrary pair of things. We can't just "apply" it arbitrarily. We can't say, "If the law of the excluded middle is applied to the law against murder and the law against stealing, then either the law against murder is true and the law against stealing is false, or else the law against murder is false the the law against stealing is true." That is not a valid application of the LEM.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:39 pmThe laws of logic applied to themselves result in the negation of said laws. If the law of excluded middle is applied to the law of identity (equality) and the law of non-contradiction (inequality) then either the law of identity is true and non-contradiction is false or the law of identity is false and the law of non-contradiction is true.Leontiskos wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 12:12 amI don't understand your argument as to why both laws cannot be simultaneously true.
Which part of Aristotle's corpus is your critique considering?
The law of the excluded middle states that, for every proposition, the proposition is either true or false, and there is no middle value between 'true' and 'false'. Since the relation between the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction is not at all the same as the relation between a single proposition's truth and its falsity, your application of the LEM is not valid.
But you still did not answer my second question. Where in Aristotle's corpus are you getting this stuff? Are you actually reading Aristotle at all?
Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking
I am in the middle of his "Metaphysics". Whether you argue for or against his work being the foundations of the laws of logic what cannot be argued against is the laws of logic being applied and reasoned for throughout it. As to the actual "part": his quick and subtle admonishment of Heraclitus...Heraclitus has his point.Leontiskos wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:48 pmSo the law of the excluded middle does not apply to just any arbitrary pair of things. We can't just "apply" it arbitrarily. We can't say, "If the law of the excluded middle is applied to the law against murder and the law against stealing, then either the law against murder is true and the law against stealing is false, or else the law against murder is false the the law against stealing is true." That is not a valid application of the LEM.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:39 pmThe laws of logic applied to themselves result in the negation of said laws. If the law of excluded middle is applied to the law of identity (equality) and the law of non-contradiction (inequality) then either the law of identity is true and non-contradiction is false or the law of identity is false and the law of non-contradiction is true.Leontiskos wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 12:12 amI don't understand your argument as to why both laws cannot be simultaneously true.
Which part of Aristotle's corpus is your critique considering?
The law of the excluded middle states that, for every proposition, the proposition is either true or false, and there is no middle value between 'true' and 'false'. Since the relation between the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction is not at all the same as the relation between a single proposition's truth and its falsity, your application of the LEM is not valid.
But you still did not answer my second question. Where in Aristotle's corpus are you getting this stuff? Are you actually reading Aristotle at all?
The interweving of the law of identity and the law of non-contradictions makes an entire proposition as both (law of identity and law of non-contradiction) are necessary for identity to occur, without either one we result in obscurity...both rely on each other thus form a singular proposition, yet this singular proposition contains with in it 'equality' and the 'absence of equality' where 'equality' is truth, as it allows for identity through symmetry, and 'inequality' is the absence of truth, as it allows for an absence of identity due to the nature of forms requiring some symmetry to exist.
Actually the law of excluded middle can be applied to any pair of things as it is the observation of things. On one end of the law you have "what is" and the other end "what is not"...a positive value and a negative value. The law of identity is the positive value (what is) due to its grounding in 'equality'. The law of non-contradiction is the negative value (what is not) due to its grounding in 'inequality'.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:57 pm
Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking
Okay, fair enough.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:53 pmI am in the middle of his "Metaphysics".Leontiskos wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:48 pmSo the law of the excluded middle does not apply to just any arbitrary pair of things. We can't just "apply" it arbitrarily. We can't say, "If the law of the excluded middle is applied to the law against murder and the law against stealing, then either the law against murder is true and the law against stealing is false, or else the law against murder is false the the law against stealing is true." That is not a valid application of the LEM.
The law of the excluded middle states that, for every proposition, the proposition is either true or false, and there is no middle value between 'true' and 'false'. Since the relation between the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction is not at all the same as the relation between a single proposition's truth and its falsity, your application of the LEM is not valid.
But you still did not answer my second question. Where in Aristotle's corpus are you getting this stuff? Are you actually reading Aristotle at all?
Building on what I said in my last post, the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction both apply to Aristotelian substances and accidents, but they simply are not mutually exclusive in the way you suppose. It can be true that something is identical with itself while at the same time it is not identical with another thing. For example, I am me (law of identity) and I am not you (law of non-contradiction). They are both true at the same time. Naturally, they refer to different objects, but that is much the point.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:53 pmThe interweving of the law of identity and the law of non-contradictions makes an entire proposition as both (law of identity and law of non-contradiction) are necessary for identity to occur, without either one we result in obscurity...both rely on each other thus form a singular proposition, yet this singular proposition contains with in it 'equality' and the 'absence of equality' where 'equality' is truth, as it allows for identity through symmetry, and 'inequality' is the absence of truth, as it allows for an absence of identity due to the nature of forms requiring some symmetry to exist.
Actually the law of excluded middle can be applied to any pair of things as it is the observation of things. On one end of the law you have "what is" and the other end "what is not"...a positive value and a negative value. The law of identity is the positive value (what is) due to its grounding in 'equality'. The law of non-contradiction is the negative value (what is not) due to its grounding in 'inequality'.
As I said in my first post, I don't perceive any clear argument that you have given to the contrary. We can't just stipulate termina for the LEM.
Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking
None are so blind as those who refuse to understand.Leontiskos wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:30 pm Building on what I said in my last post, the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction both apply to Aristotelian substances and accidents, but they simply are not mutually exclusive in the way you suppose. It can be true that something is identical with itself while at the same time it is not identical with another thing. For example, I am me (law of identity) and I am not you (law of non-contradiction). They are both true at the same time. Naturally, they refer to different objects, but that is much the point.
As I said in my first post, I don't perceive any clear argument that you have given to the contrary. We can't just stipulate termina for the LEM.
There is an A such that A is the same as itself.
There is a B such that B is not the same as itself.
e.g there are systems of logic in which the "law" of identity is not universal.
Code: Select all
IPython 8.13.2 -- An enhanced Interactive Python. Type '?' for help.
In [1]: class Classical(): pass
In [2]: class NonClassical():
...: def __eq__(self, other): return False
...:
In [3]: A = Classical()
In [4]: B = NonClassical()
In [5]: A == A
Out[5]: True
In [6]: B == B
Out[6]: False
Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking
The contradiction depends on where you place the core truth value of the laws discussed, this value can be expressed as: Equality vs. Inequality. This dichotomy results in opposites and yet these opposites depend on each other, remove one and the other one goes. However from another angle each of these laws, identity and non-contradiction, are mutually exclusive just as 'truth' and 'falsity' are mutually exclusive as one is the negation of the other.Leontiskos wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:30 pmOkay, fair enough.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:53 pmI am in the middle of his "Metaphysics".Leontiskos wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:48 pmSo the law of the excluded middle does not apply to just any arbitrary pair of things. We can't just "apply" it arbitrarily. We can't say, "If the law of the excluded middle is applied to the law against murder and the law against stealing, then either the law against murder is true and the law against stealing is false, or else the law against murder is false the the law against stealing is true." That is not a valid application of the LEM.
The law of the excluded middle states that, for every proposition, the proposition is either true or false, and there is no middle value between 'true' and 'false'. Since the relation between the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction is not at all the same as the relation between a single proposition's truth and its falsity, your application of the LEM is not valid.
But you still did not answer my second question. Where in Aristotle's corpus are you getting this stuff? Are you actually reading Aristotle at all?
Building on what I said in my last post, the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction both apply to Aristotelian substances and accidents, but they simply are not mutually exclusive in the way you suppose. It can be true that something is identical with itself while at the same time it is not identical with another thing. For example, I am me (law of identity) and I am not you (law of non-contradiction). They are both true at the same time. Naturally, they refer to different objects, but that is much the point.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:53 pmThe interweving of the law of identity and the law of non-contradictions makes an entire proposition as both (law of identity and law of non-contradiction) are necessary for identity to occur, without either one we result in obscurity...both rely on each other thus form a singular proposition, yet this singular proposition contains with in it 'equality' and the 'absence of equality' where 'equality' is truth, as it allows for identity through symmetry, and 'inequality' is the absence of truth, as it allows for an absence of identity due to the nature of forms requiring some symmetry to exist.
Actually the law of excluded middle can be applied to any pair of things as it is the observation of things. On one end of the law you have "what is" and the other end "what is not"...a positive value and a negative value. The law of identity is the positive value (what is) due to its grounding in 'equality'. The law of non-contradiction is the negative value (what is not) due to its grounding in 'inequality'.
As I said in my first post, I don't perceive any clear argument that you have given to the contrary. We can't just stipulate termina for the LEM.
Another way of looking at this:
"Me" and "You" share the relative truth values of "Existence of Me" and "Non-Existence of Me (You)".
Because the laws of identity and law of non-contradiction are opposites in values, equality vs. absence of equality, one is the absence of the other thus it is the same as saying "A" and "-A" when saying "Law of Identity and Law of Non-Contradiction".
Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking
And where do you stand on the argument I provided?Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:42 pmNone are so blind as those who refuse to understand.Leontiskos wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:30 pm Building on what I said in my last post, the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction both apply to Aristotelian substances and accidents, but they simply are not mutually exclusive in the way you suppose. It can be true that something is identical with itself while at the same time it is not identical with another thing. For example, I am me (law of identity) and I am not you (law of non-contradiction). They are both true at the same time. Naturally, they refer to different objects, but that is much the point.
As I said in my first post, I don't perceive any clear argument that you have given to the contrary. We can't just stipulate termina for the LEM.
There is an A such that A is the same as itself.
There is a B such that B is not the same as itself.
e.g there are systems of logic in which the "law" of identity is not universal.
Code: Select all
IPython 8.13.2 -- An enhanced Interactive Python. Type '?' for help. In [1]: class Classical(): pass In [2]: class NonClassical(): ...: def __eq__(self, other): return False ...: In [3]: A = Classical() In [4]: B = NonClassical() In [5]: A == A Out[5]: True In [6]: B == B Out[6]: False
Re: Why I Am Neither For Nor Against Aristotelian Thinking
Nowhere.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:46 pmAnd where do you stand on the argument I provided?Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:42 pmNone are so blind as those who refuse to understand.Leontiskos wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:30 pm Building on what I said in my last post, the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction both apply to Aristotelian substances and accidents, but they simply are not mutually exclusive in the way you suppose. It can be true that something is identical with itself while at the same time it is not identical with another thing. For example, I am me (law of identity) and I am not you (law of non-contradiction). They are both true at the same time. Naturally, they refer to different objects, but that is much the point.
As I said in my first post, I don't perceive any clear argument that you have given to the contrary. We can't just stipulate termina for the LEM.
There is an A such that A is the same as itself.
There is a B such that B is not the same as itself.
e.g there are systems of logic in which the "law" of identity is not universal.
Code: Select all
IPython 8.13.2 -- An enhanced Interactive Python. Type '?' for help. In [1]: class Classical(): pass In [2]: class NonClassical(): ...: def __eq__(self, other): return False ...: In [3]: A = Classical() In [4]: B = NonClassical() In [5]: A == A Out[5]: True In [6]: B == B Out[6]: False
Boolean logic with excluded middle amounts to choice.
Sometimes a thing is identical to itself
Sometimes it's not.
Code: Select all
In [1]: from random import choice
In [2]: class Random():
...: def __eq__(self, other): return choice([True, False])
...:
In [3]: C = Random()
In [4]: C == C
Out[4]: True
In [5]: C == C
Out[5]: False