----- Original Message ----- From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ian: > Nagarjuna was arguably the first philosopher to systematically > explore and > > *break* with the limits of the applicability of the law of > non-contradiction > > and the implications for ontology and epistemology. > > so he or she embraces double-think? ================== He invites us to explore that which is neither irrational nor embraces the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. To the extent those issues make contact d-t, via associative psychology, yes he would assert the need to *understand* the multiple meanings of double-think. > > > Leibniz flirted with, but > > recoiled from breaking with the law when he discussed combinatorics and > > incompossibilities. Hegel, while sticking with Aristotelian logic, > admitted > > the existence of true contradictions. Marx sociologized-economized them, > > arguably heralding the use of fallacies of composition type arguments > while > > breaking with the methodological individualism ... > > I'd agree with Marx. There aren't any true contradictions in logic (though > they do exist in illogical thinking). ================ The whole field of paraconsistent logic or dialethic logic takes issue with that *axiom*. Rather than exhaust myself providing you with a monographic style exposition, you are free to choose to click on the following links. There is no sound-bite reply to Marx' assertion other than the assertion of ex contradictione quodlibet --from a contradiction every proposition may be deduced-- is not *necessarily* true. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-inconsistent/ These are deeply vexing issues in logic, mathematics and computer science right now and will continue to have not insignificant effects on the future of computer hardware and software, so they are not just idle speculations for the entertainment of "nerds." I'd say that logical thinking is > defined by the absence of contradiction. (I'm willing to be convinced > otherwise, though. Do you have a clear example of a "true contradiction"?) > But there are economic/sociological contradictions -- > social-structurally-based conflicts -- in the real world that can only be > abolished only by changing the social structure. (Class contradictions can > only be abolished by getting rid of classes -- though they can be shifted or > delayed or covered up.) ================= These, of course, are all predictions rather than necessarily logically valid inferences. An irreducibly pluralistic social world with agents capable, at best, of paraconsistent reasoning and deliberation and coordination strategies may incessantly shift from one "bundle" of social contradictions to another. Seems utopian in the extreme to think of a world totally devoid of conflicts of interests or, if conflicts exist, only being of an innocuous sort. The idea of socialism *as a social system free of contradictions and conflict* does not seem likely to me in the least. No, that does not mean I'm a fatalist or a quietist by any means at all. > The fallacy of composition refers to the micro vs. macro problem: while if > one person stands up to get a better view at a football game he or she will > get a better view, if everyone at the game stands up to get a better view, > the average person doesn't get one and in fact may lose due to the fatigue > resulting from standing. There's a coordination problem: people need to > figure out how to get everyone to sit down. ================ I know what the fallacies of composition-compossibility are. > > On the other hand, more of a Marx-style contradiction would occur if there > weren't enough seats in the stadium for all the people, so that there's an > inherent conflict over the distribution of seats that can't be solved via > "why can't we just get along?" (i.e., figuring out how to coordinate). The > only way to solve it is to change the structure. In this case, it would > involve either adding seats or getting rid of people. =============== Ecologically, I see a possible parable of the heap problem here....... http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Faculty/Stierman/CM/Arch/2030book/Wheat.htm Ian
