The sophists were right all along

File: tumblr_n8ar0dBJhU1s5ayero1_500.jpg (34KB, 424x282px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 424x282px

ok, how's this - nobody cares you strawweight memer

now either pick up a shovel and help us kill some persians/dragons/usurpers/tyrants or get the fuck out of the city of philosophy

File: IMG_0824.jpg (178KB, 1112x1105px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1112x1105px

>>9590404
> a victim
No you are an agent.

How can someone be right or wrong if the principle of non-contradiction doesn't apply, you idiot?

>>9590427
you can't

>>9590427
>people need to be right or wrong

>>9590427
/thread

>>9590432
Did you fucking read the OP at all? If you claim that the sophists are correct about a proposition, that implies that there are at least two values regarding that proposition - truth and falsehood. If the principle of non-contradiction doesn't apply, you can't be "correct" about any proposition since it doesn't have a consistent truth value.

Now, if you can propose an epistemological system that has truth values with contradictions, we're all ears. Otherwise it's just shitty bait.

>>9590427
>>9590444
>begs the question
right and wrong are notions connected to the very PNC, retards

>>9590391
How can I prove what is self-evident, dumbass? A better question would be how can you question the principle of noncontradiction without presupposing its existence

Me: "mushrooms taste good"
Other: "mushrooms taste bad"

both are true

eat shit brainlet

>>9592024
derp

test

>>9592024
more like
>my chemical reception configuration is different than yours
not that both statements are true, but rather that both statements are illusory and irrelevant in the sense that the systems used to interpret sense are not unified across the various entities.
with a relative system without rigid order, there can be no truth, as it is flawed for that consideration.

No I agree.

File: 1494718546609.jpg (110KB, 922x940px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 922x940px

What if the the law of non-contridiction does not always have to be true? What if some parts of existence can operate by the law of non-contridiction while others don't? By holding the idea that either non-contridiction is right or wrong then we are making an appeal to non-contridiction. But if we choose neither to hold that it is always right or always wrong then we arrive at a new way of looking at reality: a reality in which truth is situational.

>>9592711
think before writing posts like this
damn

>>9592013
>how can you question the principle of noncontradiction without presupposing its existence


This nigger just fucked up ur shit OP
how will u recover

>>9593231
is this post ironic or wuat

>>9593215
yeah what he means is dialetheism but is fundamentally unable to get to that level

>>9592013

My answer (not OP) would be that this inquiry lies closer to the domain of neuroscience/cognitive science. Experience itself evolves from the unconscious, along with primitive notions that we consider as self-evident because they're deeply ingrained in our (individual) unconscious. This effect is named often in the form of axioms and a priori knowledge. Unfortunately this does not satisfy the philosopher's craving for generality, but, what did you expect anyway?

>>9590391
As Aristotle rightly points out, demonstration does not begin with demonstration. To begin any inquiry, philosophical or otherwise, you must begin with some foundational principle (axiom) that all else follows from. The principle of non-contradiction cannot be demonstrated by way of deduction, but induction can do the job just as well. The principle of non-contradiction is necessary because without it all rational discourse is destroyed. Just give it up and accept Heraclitus and Protagoras were wrong

>>9593269
Just give it up and accept Heraclitus and Protagoras were wrong

and that Parmenides is right

>>9593287
Yes, he very much was.

>>9592711

Good lord this is dumb.

>>9593355
>>9593215
contextualism isn't retarded

Father Garrigou-Lagrange gives us eight principal reasons, based on Aristotle, for defending the necessity and real validity of the principle of contradiction. They are briefly:

1. To deny this necessity and this validity would be to deprive words of their fixed meaning and to render speech useless;

2. All idea of the reality of an essence, or thing or substance as such, would have to be abandoned; there would be only a becoming without anything which is on the way of becoming; it would be like saying that there can be a flux without a fluid, a flight without a bird, a dream without a dreamer;

3. There would no longer be any distinction between things, between a galley, a wall, and man;

4. It would mean the destruction of all truth, for truth follows being;

5. It would destroy all thought, even all opinion; for its very affirmation would be a negation.

6. It would mean the destruction of all desire and all hatred; there would be only absolute indifference, for there would be no distinction between good and evil; there would be no reason why we should act;

7. It would no longer be possible to distinguish degrees of error; everything would be equally false and true at the same time;

8. It would put an end to the very notion of becoming; between the beginning and the end of a movement; the first would already be the second, and any transition from one state to another would be impossible. Moreover, “becoming” could not be explained by any of the four causes. There would be no subject of becoming; the process would be without any efficient or final cause, and without specification, and it would be both attraction and repulsion, concretion as well as fusion.

>>9593269
>rational discourse is destroyed.
only rationalists claim that this is bad, since they get btfo

>>9593443
Anyone who claims it's good doesn't understand why non-contradiction is necessary. Everything rests on this principle. You literally cannot have a coherent philosophy, even one that asserts the world is fundamentally incoherent, without it.

>>9593287
>Parmenides is right

Fuck off. You like everyone else don't understand his philosophy.