Date: Mon, 9 Mar 98 3:43:32 EST From: boddhisatva <kbevans-AT-panix.com> Subject: Re: M-TH: Dialectics and Paraconsistent Logic To whom..., It seems to me that the problem with the two paradoxical sentences is that they are both self-negating. If I write the sentence "This sentence does not exist.", the problem seems a little clearer. A thing cannot negate itself, since it's existence is an a priori requirement. Therefore the sentence "This sentence does not exist." exists but in character does not reflect reality. The sentence "This sentence is not true." exists. It exists before we get to the end of the sentence. The words "This sentence is...." represent a material fact. The words "not true" are an attempt to represent a subsequent interpretation of reality. The paradox come when we focus on the "not true" without realizing that it's possibilities have been limited by the words "This sentence is". If I write the sentence "This sentence is yellow.", the sentence is rendered moot and nonsensical before it is even read. The first letter of the sentence precludes its conclusion's being true (unless you have a very odd mail reader). Zeno's paradox is the same way. We first stipulate that Achilles runs faster than the tortoise, then we fall into the paradox by thinking that Achilles can half the distance between himself and the tortoise eternally. The problem is that the stipulation does not allow the possibility of the second observation to be true. There is no way to measure time which does not allow for Achilles to overtake the tortoise. Obviously Achilles could not overtake the tortoise if time and all existence stopped, but that is a moot case. It is a self-negation. Once we say "faster", we have decided the relative fates of Achilles and the tortoise. The "Monty Hall" problem shows the falsity of paradoxes that do not accept their own premise. There are three curtains. One has a car behind it. I pick one. Monty opens a different one which proves not to have the car behind it. Now there are two left, the one I picked and the other one. The temptation is to believe that there is an equal probability the car is behind either of the two remaining curtains. There isn't, of course, but when faced with a situation with two unknowns - one the right choice and one the wrong - one tends to make the fifty-fifty assumption. Descartes didn't have to say "I think, therefore I am." All he had to say was "I". I think it was a Zen Buddhist who made the statement "We prefer flowers to weeds." This typically enigmatic and elliptical sentence refers to the Buddhist doctrine that all matter, life and death, etc. are equal by definition. Obviously there is no ontological difference between flowers and weeds, yet we prefer flowers to weeds. The existence of that preference is taken as evidence of the unique, positive, compassionate character of our existence. It implies that after we reduce all our preconceptions to nothing we are left with our positive appreciation of existence. It is close, in that way, to Descartes, but allows for a minimal, yet transcendental "starting point". I don't mean to endorse it as such, but it has the desirable quality of accepting the fact that *all* premises limit the possibilities of conclusion (even in a religious philosophy that has "nothingness" as one of its precepts). Once one accepts that no premise allows for all possibilities, paradoxes are reduced. peace --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005