To say P=/=-P is to say men and women are not equal

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: To say P=/=-P is to say men and women are not equal

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:49 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:57 am
As I had asserted, in trying to be a smart-alec in this case exposed you as a smart-fool.

A square peg and a square hole are complementary items not contradictions [as defined].

What is contradictory to 'square' is 'round' thus the 'peg' and 'hole' are not critical in this case.
1. False, the square peg is a substance (P) while the square hole is an absence of substance (-P). A peg and a hole are both opposites much in the same manner men and women are opposites. The peg lacks a hole while the hole lacks material equivalent to a peg.

2. A square and a circle are both loops given their beginning points are the same as their end points. Both the square and the circle equate through the common median of loop, they are complimentary in this sense. They are both shapes as well thus further extending how they are complimentary. A square is not the opposite of a circle as many other forms exist beside the square, the LNC observes opposites.

3. You are ignoring: 1. "Because x occurs only through the context of y" necessitates "x occuring only through the context of y" as an absolute. In arguing for the LNC, as only existing in specific contexts, you are arguing for absolutes.
I am giving a pass to all your attempts to be a smart-alec which is making you a smart-fool re the topic of contradiction, i.e.
  • contradiction
    a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another.
    "the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
    a situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
    "the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
    the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
    "the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"
1. "the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions" shows two or more opposing phenomenon exist simultaneously under the same context of "new system". This combination shows both opposites existing under the same context at the same time, the key word for this "same context" is "combination".

2. A negative of a negative is a positive thus necessitates the self negation (self-opposition) of the negative existing through the context of the positive. The positive is the singular context self negation exist through.

3. Opposites require a symmetry between them thus a common context (ie square peg and square hole) they both unite under. By uniting under this common context they equate through said context. Opposites equivocate much in the same manner "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

4. The statement ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) observes both P and -P equate through the law of identity as the law of identity is equal to itself no matter how it is expressed. The reduction of the valid statement ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is (P=-P) give both P and -P respectively require (P=P) and (-P=-P) to exist.





You are ignoring: 1. "Because x occurs only through the context of y" necessitates "x occuring only through the context of y" as an absolute. In arguing for the LNC, as only existing in specific contexts, you are arguing for absolutes.
Post Reply