I am sure MCT is not violent. I take him at his word. However, language is often used which shows a propensity toward an obtuse position drawing closer and closer toward actions - sometimes closer and closer toward violent actions. Just because one uses the word "reason" does not make ones position any more valid. Ultimately it wouldn't matter to me if we were talking about the distinction of 100% vs 99.99999%, some belief in a fictitious god, a fact that exercising improves your health, or even some wacko belief that drinking out of green cups grants immortality. The right to have a belief is fundamentally inherent and not given (by Nature or Nature's God) nor by Governments nor by anyone else. By what I've seen, heard and read of the history of the human condition; it is those who hold the archaic mindset of only T or F which more easily find the enemy in the other camp - because there IS only one other camp. When the guy believing in the power of the green cups gets so absolute about its 'reality', he draws closer and closer to acting out of some need to 'help' others (converting to his camp) AND/OR closer and closer to 'hurt' those he puts in the enemy camp.
I haven't met a lot of agnostics or non-theists who get angry at what others believe. I have met a lot of Atheists who do get angry. My concern is that the anger goes somewhere. Even if there are not near as many Atheists out there doing violence because of his/her knowledge. We know there are religious zealots who do because of his/her belief. There are an overwhelming amount of religious believers who don't do violence because of his/her belief. It makes no sense to me to purport the Extremist Absolute view of knowledge from a tautological Classical Logic framework, taken to the point of a codified Falseness on the claim of the existence of gods, or whatever, unless one is actually trying to establish that 'False' camp in opposition to the only other possible camp out there, True.
Pragmatic and Utilitarian Reason begs for retreat from Absolutism. Language purporting extremism should be a red flag for anyone. If you're going to be a leader and spout off about 'realities' and 'ultimate truths', I'm on guard with anyone using language marginalizing toward ONLY truths or falsehoods.
Though I may live just outside the 100%'er camp, I will not be walled by it, nor participate in building weapons (not even weapons of language), nor will I be a part of appearing threatening in effect scaring those back toward the other camp who might have actually left-off the absurdities of religion with a more acute approach.
Marc, your position is itself absolutist. Your bizarre insistence that it is possible for something to be simultaneously true and false is nonsense on its face, and you are sticking to your story, evidence and argument be damned. It's really difficult to see how you are not guilty of the very thing you are complaining about, especially when you have by far the logically weaker position. That is precisely the problem with fundamentalist religionists. They hold some wacky proposition to be so important that they dismiss anything to the contrary. We have explained to you repeatedly, on this and other threads, why your embrace of contradiction is meaningless and unfruitful, yet you hew to it as religionists do to "revelation". Your embrace of contradiction and subjectivity as "truth" is the dangerous position; it allows any conclusion whatsoever to be drawn and fiercely defended, even to the point of violence.
Jason. I have only talked about my position on this thread and one post which I created. I am not out here trolling, itching to pounce on any poster's position which does not agree with mine. There are those who are [cough cough... MCT] You sir, are not one of those people. As I remember, you and I reached an impasse when you acknowledged the claim of what I call "Objective Reality takes precedence over Subjective Reality". It was at that point we really had nothing left to say. Since I'm not here to try and convert others (rather only to make my presence and position known to those pushing too hard) it appears we remain in the same place we left off... standing staring speechless. But it sure is good talking with you again.
I'm not accusing you of trolling, Marc; I'm sure you really believe what you are saying. But we have discussed this, and your position is logically indefensible and rather completely in the minority. Even religionists usually accept that there can be no proposition that is simultaneously both true and false. They just don't often notice it when they hold such propositions to be true (like the trinity, or Jesus as both god and man), and they are far more likely to accept false propositions as being magically true.
Your embrace of contradiction as logically possible is squarely on the religious side of the debate, since it condemns actual truth to meaninglessness. If propositions can be both true and false, then there is no possible means to determine whether something is true, including the proposition that propositions can be simultaneously true and false. Your position is nonsense on stilts. You need to climb down off those stilts and rejoin reality already in progress. You claim that paradox is part of reality, but that's just surrender in the face of truth claims that are difficult to untangle. Or worse, it's being polite for the sake of getting along with people who are demonstrably incorrect. Well, I'm sorry, but you're demonstrably incorrect here. You don't get to redefine logic so that it no longer functions.
I'm not interested in violence, and I seriously doubt that my insistence that propositions cannot be simultaneously true and false serves as any kind of incitement to violence on the part of others. You want to dismantle reason itself in favor of feel-good hand-waving, and you object when others don't see things your way. You should probably get used to disappointment. I gave your arguments a good hearing, but they simply don't make any sense. Worse, if true, they would make making sense impossible, and invalidate themselves. If you can't grasp this, then you don't understand the very thing you are trying to supplant.
Jason. Thank you for putting in bold the exact statement I was going to quote. Also I must add your previous sentence "Your embrace of contradiction as logically possible... condemns actual truth to meaninglessness." Both of your statements are false.
(1) They assume that my Neo-Classical Logical system DOES NOT allow for conclusions to be made which ARE actually either T or F.
(2) The statements don't stem from the axiom of Classical Logic, they are an attempt to prove the axiom - thus the tautology.
I only need one... One proposition which can be reasonably concluded as both T and F for the whole codified Formal Logic system to come crumbling. We've been over and over this.
Here, allow me to confess. For years I was the proud owner of the label Ontological Solipsist. I was quite confident in the assertion that "Subjective Reality takes precedence over Objective Reality". I can honestly say it gave me the creeps thinking how ANYONE could possibly reason the converse. Isn't the subject the prime requisite for experience, thus identification, thus meaning of identities beyond - the Objective Reality?
Now Jason, if I can study further, adjust my thinking to come to the more reasonable position that Subjective Reality and Objective Reality are inextricably intertwined, I continue to hope someone as reasonable as yourself could as well. But if not, please don't blame me because my arguments don't make sense to you or anyone choosing to only have the "Objective Reality takes precedence of Subjective Reality" point of view.
Marc, you don't understand what I'm saying, and I'm pretty sure you don't really grasp what you are saying. You certainly haven't seen the logical conclusions that follow from your premises. Here it is in a nutshell (again):
Any system of (purported) logic which allows any propositions to be simultaneously true and false is incapable of confirming any proposition to be only true or only false. It's big of you to grant your permission for propositions to be either true or false, but by failing to prohibit logical contradiction from your system, you are also granting your permission for anybody to assert that any proposition is both true and false, because you have no way to assert that they aren't correct.
That's the problem with embracing subjectivity--you have no way to assert that any propositions are actually false. That's why your system isn't a system of logic. Your system ultimately considers all statements to be true. And that is simply gibberish. You think you used to be a solipsist. You still are very much a solipsist. You've just convinced yourself that you aren't because you came up with some "logical system" that you can't adequately define, because in defining it you would see that it fails. And this is indistinguishable in practice from solipsism.
You have no way to say that anything is untrue, and yet you persist in saying that classical formal logic is incorrect. That's just hurtful. Shouldn't you at least be polite enough to say that classical formal logic is both true and false?
I did conclude Classical Logic is both T and F on page 159 of this thread. Dean asked for an answer to: "I am a practitioner of Formal Logic."
And if you remember, on the other thread I started I stated that I am a Pragmatic Utilitarian Soli Fallibalist. Yes, Soli refers to the basic principles of Solipsism but does not adhere to its extremist positions. I can easily deduce the existential ontology in others. The other labels are merely a useful way for me to reasonably balance the inextricable relationship with Objective Reality. I actually admire Epistemology and the scientific approach. If you would also remember, I told you that my system does not ultimately threaten scientific investigations BECAUSE truths and falsehoods can and should and will be concluded. My addition of the other two categories simply clean up the smelly trash heap Formal Logic throws all propositions which are not stated properly. Nobody likes the smell, so they won't go near them. And if forced to have to deal with the trash, simply use whatever language he/she can to pretty it up to look like only T or F.
Oh... and... here... 2 inches + 2 centimeters = 4 feet
That proposition is of course false. So please quit saying that my system does not allow for false conclusions.
Marc, if you allow that a proposition can be both true and false, then any proposition can be stretched to fit. 2 inches + 2 centimeters = 4 feet, if you insist that from your point of view "feet" is just a synonym for "things". If you allow true to equal false, then neither one means anything at all.
Your explicit reason for considering some propositions to be both true and false is to accommodate apparent contradictions without having to bother understanding why there appears to be a contradiction. It is simply giving up before investigating thoroughly. All this does is encourage sloppy thinking in an effort to give everybody a blue ribbon for "being right". You never did explain what you hope to gain by degrading formal logic in this way. I am left to surmise that you simply value everybody's emotional need to "be right" more than you value objective reality. You give objective reality lip service, but you clearly aren't interested in it or you would recognize subjectivity as the stumbling block to understanding that it is.
Again, yours is an absolutist position: Every perspective is equally true and no position is 100% correct. Which of course contradicts itself. If you're unwilling to work within the framework of logic, then you're unwilling to have a reasoned discourse.
In normal logic, (True AND False) = False, always.
In your system, Marc, sometimes (True AND False) = True.
True and False are therefore indistinguishable. Congratulations, you've completely destroyed meaning itself.
Jason, No reply link. I'm replying to your post below.
SIGH... Please do not put words in my mouth because you are wrangling around trying to fit all this in an absolute T or F mindset.
I never said anything about equating "feet" with "things". Come on man, take the proposition AS IT IS STATED and draw a proper conclusion - False. My system would only APPEAR to equate true and false if you assume ONLY true or false. How many ways do I have to state it?
Your conclusions on my system are actually quite the opposite of what it allows. It is the strict Formal Logic system which allows for emotional 'blue ribbons' to those too lazy to seek out a re-stating of propositions for clarity - if a re-statement can be made.
I chuckle at your statement that I only give lip service to objective reality. Again this is based on your incessant, dare I say emotional, need to maintain a world view where objective reality takes precedence over subjective reality.
We've been here, Jason. What appears to you as my justification for everyone's emotional need to be right is actually quite the opposite. The emotional need to be right is justified by those using the comfort of always being able to fall back on a world view of only T or F. Oh how some people need this in their lives. I beseech you. No more putting words in my mouth! Every perspective is not necessarily equally true and there are positions which are 100%. It just so happens that the question posited on this thread (the proposition derived by it) is one of those which is only properly concluded as both T and F.
With your statement "I am left to surmise that you simply value everybody's emotional need to 'be right' more than you value objective reality." I wonder if you have even investigated the "Subjective precedence..." approach at all. I doubt you will be willing to meet me in the middle at Subjective/Objective inextricably intertwined until you do.
If you choose not to and if you're going to continue and continue and continue to try and force every proposition into only T or F, it is not I who is unwilling to have a reasoned discourse. Are we back to standing and staring speechless again?
You're stuck in the tautology.
Axiom [Formal Logic] = Only T or F
Proposition ["In normal Logic, (True and False) = False, Always."]
I can only surmise by your proposition you mean to conclude: Therefore Formal Logic - only T or F.
The claim that (True and False) = False in Formal Logic is part of the tautology to deny contradictions. Hmmm... Geee... If we HAVE to have ONLY T or F... hmmm... well... we can't have a (True AND False)... so we're just going to throw it on the trash heap as False. Not very logical.
No. In my system (True AND False) = (True AND False)
True = True
False = False
(Not True AND Not False) = (Not True AND Not False)
You're desperately holding on to the immense complications involved in trying to force conclusions of all propositions into ONLY T or F. Meaning is alive and well.
Marc, I'll speak very slowly. You assert that it is possible for something to be both true and false. In ordinary human language, this means that you are saying that such a thing can be true. In mathematical terms, you are very definitely asserting that:
(True AND False) = True (at least in some cases)
You say that you are asserting that:
(True AND False) = (True AND False)
(and only (True AND False))
But of course by saying that some condition can hold, you are saying that it can be true. Just regular old true.
You also say that it is possible for something to not be both true and false. In ordinary human language you are saying that such a thing can be false. You are thereby equating the logical states of true and false. If you do this, then there is no such thing as true and no such thing as false. There is just an epistemological paste.
I'm on quite firm ground insisting that this is nonsense. You are speaking in vapors by insisting that things can be both true and false. If you truly believe this, then you are rejecting the very concepts of true and false. In so doing, you invalidate your own assertion.
You can stand and stare speechless if you like, but I'm not the loony one here. Accusing me of being illogical when I insist on hewing to the bedrock principles of logic is pretty rich. You're the one attempting to destroy logic itself. And somehow I'm the radical here? Don't think so.