[Are contradictions meaningful]

11 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

As an aside, the original quote says ‘sleep’, not ‘are currently sleeping’. To show that the sentence is meaningless, you first have to show what “mean” means. When an expression means something, it refers to that thing. It would be pointless to get into a long technical wrangle establishing what that sentence would refer to, but non-technically, it’s clear that it claims that certain things and actions exist, and the things are doing those actions. As MisterSwig points out, ‘colorless’ and ‘red’ are mutually incompatible, at the most basic definitional level, and nothing can be colorless and red. I will ignore ‘colorless’ because I believe that it’s meaning is more subtle than the denial of ‘having color’; but ‘red idea’ also invokes a contradiction, in this case involving the nature of ‘idea’ (not the definition) and the definition of ‘red’. Likewise, the nature of the act ‘sleep’ contradicts the nature of an action being ‘furious’ (and finally, ideas cannot sleep: an idea is non-living, and sleep is an action of a living thing – again, a contradiction).

 

 

A contradiction does not identity or refer to any existent. When an expression means something, it refers to an existent. A contradiction lacks meaning, or, is meaningless.

 

 

 

 

Ok, so im not crazy!!!!

Thank you, however this warrants a follow up question. 

If contradictions are meaningless then can a contradictory statement be false?  

Consider the following definition and how its used in a proposition. 

"Boobob is a dead dog who is living" 

"Boobob whent to the store."  

The latter sentence many would say false.

 

However if "Boobob" identifies no entity real or imagined  then the sentence isn't about anything.

So what about it could be false?

[Are contradictions meaningful]

I suspect not, though I do see arguments online claiming they are.

 

Here is my reasoning.

P1 Words represent concepts. 

P2 Concepts can be made of more concepts. (dragon=lizard with wings)

C1 Therefore if a word purports to represent a combination of many concepts, but those concepts fail to cohere into a new concept then the word fails to represent a concept.


For a example of my conclusion:

 "Buglump" is a Colorless red existing dog that is a cat and doesn't exist. 

Buglump's concepts fail to cohere and thus do not form a new idea. Unlike wings and lizard, which form the new thought dragon

 

If I am wrong I would ask then for a explanation for why sentences like "Colorless green ideas are currently sleeping furiously" are considered meaningless generally.   

[Abstractions as such do not exist?]

Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete.

How can this be the case? 

 "they are merely man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists." Seems to be saying that man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists, doesn't exist.

 

This is so strange that feel like I'm missing something. 

[Fallacy of Pure Self reference]

The fallacy of pure self-reference occurs when a concept or statement is asserted as referring exclusively to its own object-less referring

Example: This statement is true

It originates with Dr. Harry Binswanger

 

The problem I see with this fallacy is it seems to not be universally ture.

"This sentence has exactly six words" is true while also only referring to itself.

I think the key to my misunderstanding of it is the part about "its own objectless referring".

However im unsure, is the fallacy of pure self reference actually a thing?