Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Jose

Ayn Rand's Popcorn-tradiction.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

What’s wrong with it?

I am waiting for you to explain what you mean ...

This is what I mean when I said that my questions are ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jose said:
On 7/12/2019 at 4:44 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

1.  Rand is correct that in reality "contradictions are impossible"

AND

2.  Rand is incorrect that in reality "contradictions are impossible"

 

Here is the post

Okay, that's different than the previous SL quote you used, but it still poses no problem.

Contradictions are impossible whenever you read #1. But while you're reading #2, they become temporarily possible. Try it for yourself. It works every time.

Wouldn't you agree? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

Okay, that's different than the previous SL quote you used, but it still poses no problem.

Contradictions are impossible whenever you read #1. But while you're reading #2, they become temporarily possible. Try it for yourself. It works every time.

Wouldn't you agree? 

No. There is no rational of making 2 temporary and no 1, nor they are any ceriteria to start or stop using it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jose said:

No. There is no rational of making 2 temporary and no 1, nor they are any ceriteria to start or stop using it.

The rationale is very simple actually. While contradictions are impossible, they can't also be possible at the same time. And when they're possible, they can't also be impossible. So they must be possible and impossible at different, separate time periods.

The criteria is also very simple, while you're observing a contradiction, they are possible. When you're not, they are impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

The criteria is also very simple, while you're observing a contradiction, they are possible. When you're not, they are impossible.

This will put a level of subjectivism on your philosophy ...

Also if the impossibility of contradictions depends of the law of identity, allowing temporarily contradictions means suspending the law of identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jose said:

This will put a level of subjectivism on your philosophy ...

I don't see how, since I can't control when a contradiction happens.

18 minutes ago, Jose said:

Also if the impossibility of contradictions depends of the law of identity, allowing temporarily contradictions means suspending the law of identity.

Why would it depend on the law of identity? It's more like the law of identity depends on the existence or non-existence of a contradiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I don't see how, since I can't control when a contradiction happens.

You said that if someone sees a contradiction or not change your premises. Very subjective to me

 

12 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Why would it depend on the law of identity? It's more like the law of identity depends on the existence or non-existence of a contradiction

It can be one depends of the other or the other way around but missing one, means missing the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2019 at 9:01 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

The Law of Identity is what says that contradictions cannot exist.

 

This is what people have said about the relationship between contradictions and identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Can you read?

It means what it says.  

If evasion were a olímpico sport you will be gold. Can you explain what it means?

Edited by Jose
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jose said:

You said that if someone sees a contradiction or not change your premises. Very subjective to me

I have to change my premise in accordance with the changing reality. That doesn't make it subjective. It makes it objective.

28 minutes ago, Jose said:

It can be one depends of the other or the other way around but missing one, means missing the other.

The law of identity is merely a concept in our mind. A contradiction in reality cannot depend on our mind. That would be subjectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jose said:

If evasion were a olímpico sport you will be gold. Can you explain what it means?

OK let's get down to business.

I'll help explain it to you.

 

First: which parts DO you understand?

Once we establish THAT, we can work on the parts you DON'T understand.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

The law of identity is merely a concept in our mind. A contradiction in reality cannot depend on our mind. That would be subjectivism.

One of the premesis of Ojectivism is the Law of Identity? That based on what you said is subjective.

 

Also can you explain why statement 2 is temporal and not 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

OK let's get down to business.

I'll help explain it to you.

 

First: which parts DO you understand?

Once we establish THAT, we can work on the parts you DON'T understand.

Please explane all of it. I just want to avoid misunderstandings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jose said:

One of the premesis of Ojectivism is the Law of Identity? That based on what you said is subjective.

No, because Objectivism recognizes context. It only applies when there are no contradictions. When a contradiction happens, Objectivism doesn't apply to that reality.

1 hour ago, Jose said:

Also can you explain why statement 2 is temporal and not 1

Both statements are temporary. They are true only for as long as they accurately describe reality.

Do you see now how Rand was right?

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

No, because Objectivism recognizes context. It only applies when there are no contradictions. When a contradiction happens, Objectivism doesn't apply to that reality.

Both statements are temporary. They are true only for as long as they accurately describe reality.

Do you see now how Rand was right?

Yes! Rand's philosophy is very good at finding an excuse to made the world fit in hers. In other words if reality does not fit your world view change reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

I'm going to need more popcorn.

And I should also add a note of thanks, Jose, for your help demonstrating just how well philosophy works.

Welcome, so happy on teaching you something ... anything

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jose said:

Please explane all of it. I just want to avoid misunderstandings

Do know what I mean by “Rand”? I mean Ayn Rand.

Do you know what I mean by “is”?  I know English is hard but it specifies existence or the state of being which is common to all things that are.

Do you know what “correct” means?  It means to be “right” about something a correspondence with reality.  You can look it up in the dictionary if you want a full English definition.

”that”  “in”’and “AND” are truly simple words.  If you don’t understand them you should not try to discuss anything in English let alone philosophy.

What I mean by “reality” is generally the realm of all that which exists as distinguished from fiction.. fantasy, the false or the imagined. again if you want a definition look it up in an English dictionary.

You yourself raised the issue of “contradictions” being possible in reality. So that word is taken care of.

“Impossible” is the opposite of “possible” and “incorrect” is the opposite of “correct”. In any case you can use a dictionary if you need to.

So that about covers everything.

 

Is there any part of what I said which you STILL do not understand?

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Do know what I mean by “Rand”? I mean Ayn Rand.

Do you know what I mean by “is”?  I know English is hard but it specifies existence or the state of being which is common to all things that are.

Do you know what “correct” means?  It means to be “right” about something a correspondence with reality.  You can look it up in the dictionary if you want a full English definition.

”that”  “in”’and “AND” are truly simple words.  If you don’t understand them you should not try to discuss anything in English let alone philosophy.

What I mean by “reality” is generally the realm of all that which exists as distinguished from fiction.. fantasy, the false or the imagined. again if you want a definition look it up in an English dictionary.

You yourself raised the issue of “contradictions” being possible in reality. So that word is taken care of.

“Impossible” is the opposite of “possible” and “incorrect” is the opposite of “correct”. In any case you can use a dictionary if you need to.

So that about covers everything.

 

Is there any part of what I said which you STILL do not understand?

 

Wow I admire your evasion tactics... I mean your habilita to write so much without touching the question. I ask what the concept mean and you explained the words. There is no point on keep engaged in this discussion if you are just Trolling, I thought that this place was about intelectual discussion but SL have prove me wrong.

Enjoy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that "Dishonest Jose" is gone, here is a little script with "Honest Joe"... Here, HonestJoe, although he made errors in the past, is intellectually honest and actually willing to think.

SL:

Suppose I say 

 

Rand is correct that in reality "contradictions are impossible" (1) AND Rand is incorrect that in reality "contradictions are impossible" (2).

 

Is there anything wrong with that?

 

HonestJoe:

Well first, I understand what you have said, but it is nonsensical.  That's what is wrong with it.  You are saying one thing and then another thing which is its opposite.  You cant say A and not-A.

 

SL:

Well I can say it, and I have.  So what is wrong with what I did say?

 

HonestJoe:

The sentence opposes itself... therefore it doesn't mean anything.

 

SL:

The parts (1) and (2) in the sentence each refer to something in reality.  If both CAN be true at the same then the sentence is NOT meaningless, it simultaneously identifies those two truths. It opposes itself... but it must in order to reflect reality...

 

HonestJoe:

Well, they CANT both be true in reality.  They are exact opposites, either Rand was wrong or Rand was right about the issue.... not both.  Those two parts of the sentence are not identifying two separate things about the universe they are saying the opposite about a single thing, Rand's correctness.

 

SL:

OK.  Why can't a single thing be at once two opposites in reality?  Why can't "Rand correctness" at once be two opposites at the same time and in the same respect?

 

HonestJoe:

But that would be nonsense... that would mean "Rand's correctness" in reality would be A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect. It's either A or not-A, not both. Both would be nonsense... Rand cannot in reality be correct and incorrect at the same time and in the same respect ... that would be a contradiction.

 

SL:

So, who says contradictions can't exist in reality?

 

Who?....

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2019 at 11:05 AM, MisterSwig said:

And what does "sound" mean in logic?

Non-contradictory. And that's the only illogical thing about affirming any sort of contradiction (just as you quoted Jose doing).

 

On 7/28/2019 at 6:05 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

If you could prove the existence of a metaphysical contradiction in reality we will believe you are right that Rand is wrong.

What?! 🤣 Prove it - how???

On 7/27/2019 at 10:16 PM, Jose said:

So have fun doing your naval gazing and enjoy your live in your “logical” bubble

Uh-huh. Are you ready to be an actual part of the conversation yet? Or do you still want to intentionally make yourself just a little bit dumber?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...