But consider what it’s being used for when you are denying or claiming things: It’s ultimately rhetoric.

Well, if the rules of the debating game require it, then you have to use it. But consider what it’s being used for when you are denying or claiming things: It’s ultimately rhetoric. You’re attempting to convince. Rhetoric existed prior to Aristotle. His form (and others that followed) are a subset of rhetoric.

====

dialectic – that’s the word I’m looking for. Dialectic, the method of truth discovery that we now call a part of the logic, is a subset of rhetoric.

====

We currently mock rhetoric as if it’s a lesser form. But in reality, it’s a more powerful tool for convincing. It doesn’t follow the ever growing rules of logic but has its own rules. Even more powerful than rhetoric is mythology at convincing because when you look at all of these systems, what they all have in common is they form a narrative. Narratives don’t care about their own contents. Truth values don’t matter in a narrative. It’s a story. Rhetoric tells a story to convince. Logic tells a story to convince using rules that are internally consistent with other rules of logic. Mathematics tells a story to convince using rules that are consistent with number theory and/or set theory and/or geometry etc.

-====

 

The law of excluded middle is useful – very very useful – as a tool – but can you see the ‘snake eating its tail” problem here? First, you are assuming law of excluded middle is universal. The law of excluded middle is fundamental to logic. But it’s not fundamental to rhetoric or myths or other forms of truth-telling. Yet, once you BASE things on law of excluded middle-as-axiom, THEN you’re bound by its rules, but only then.

 

====
 But here’s how insidious “law of excluded middle” is to Western academics. Is it possible that both could be true simultaneously? Can something be both true and false simultaneously?
====
That’s the influence right there. Who created that meaning of false and true that you’re using? The very person whose ideas we’re debating.
—-
A man created these concepts. A man invented law of excluded middle. A man invented the beginnings of this system we’re using. Invented the concept of truth and false that we’re using. As long as we use his glossary, or derivitives, it will always prove itself. He came up with mutual exclusion. You know there’s alternative to mutual exclusion? Reality is one of them.
====
Ok. Look around you. What is mutually exclusive around you in the physical world?
====
 It’s all a part of his same system. If I have to use only his rules of argumentation (dialectic) to argue that dialectic is incomplete, I won’t be able to do so. As far as definitions go: Who comes up with definitions? Do they fall from the sky? Or are they created within the same academic traditions that ultimately can be traced back to Aristotle?
====
 Ok. Your hose exists and doesn’t exist simultaneously. This is true.
====
 I don’t see a window. I don’t see a hose. These things don’t exist. You say they do. You can show me a picture. I can go over to your place and touch the hose and see the window. But let’s say this was a crime scene. Was the hose there at the time of the crime? Or was it placed there afterwards? Does the hose exist in time and place or doesn’t it?
=====
 Your hose exists by your word. Your hose does not exist by my empirical evidence. True means – hell, I don’t know what it means.
====
True as in “balanced” perhaps, like putting a level on a 2×4.
====
 Logic is extraordinarily useful. Law of non-contradiction is undoubtedly one of the foundations of Western academic thought. I would not wish for it to go away. That said, I believe it needs to have its proper place. That is, I do not believe the Universe is founded on logic or mathematics as its basis. That’s absurd, except to those who place all of their foundations of everything knowable on logic and/or mathematics. There are other methods of truth discovery such as introspection for example (Plato I believe considered that of great importance).
=====
 I see logic as a system, used by humans, and useful to humans for the things we think about and create. Logic can go very far. But it is incomplete because not everything fits into logic. If things must be thrown out of a system, then the system is not all-inclusive. Rather, it is a tool. A very useful tool, but still a tool, and not a foundation of the Universe. It’s a useful foundation for our UNDERSTANDING of the Universe, but not a basis of the Universe itself.
=====
I’m also not saying that, “therefore God…”. My answer to that stuff is “I don’t know” and I try to leave it at that when I can. But those who place logic or mathematics at the foundation are creating a religion with substitute gods. Do we REALLY need another one?
=====
PS Our last lines speak of morality: “Do you see how this opens up the most extreme form of nihilism and noncognitivism?” and mine: “[Religion] Do we REALLY need another one?”
====

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


five + = 7

Leave a Reply