Anarcho-Mercantilist: Evolutionary biologists, in explaining sexual selection, assume all humans as heterosexual. This assumption will simplify their theories by leaving out the analysis of homosexuality, which they consider as irrelevant to sexual selection. For example, they define the terms "male" and "female" as necessarily heterosexual and free from physical and mental defects. Assuming all males and females as necessarily heterosexual does not imply that we should condemn homosexuality. Doing so will lead to the appeal to nature fallacy and a disregard to abstractions. So please do not take personal offense. Even if we found out that homosexuality does not increase the propagation of its "selfish genes" by solving overpopulation, that does not suggest any normative judgment for or against homosexuality. Prescribing any value-judgment from only descriptive notions such as nature requires the conflation of the fact-value dichotomy. Conflating the fact-value dichotomy might lead us to conclude that "homosexuality is wrong." Keeping facts and values separate precludes this possibility.
Evolutionary biologists, in explaining sexual selection, assume all humans as heterosexual. This assumption will simplify their theories by leaving out the analysis of homosexuality, which they consider as irrelevant to sexual selection. For example, they define the terms "male" and "female" as necessarily heterosexual and free from physical and mental defects.
Assuming all males and females as necessarily heterosexual does not imply that we should condemn homosexuality. Doing so will lead to the appeal to nature fallacy and a disregard to abstractions. So please do not take personal offense. Even if we found out that homosexuality does not increase the propagation of its "selfish genes" by solving overpopulation, that does not suggest any normative judgment for or against homosexuality. Prescribing any value-judgment from only descriptive notions such as nature requires the conflation of the fact-value dichotomy.
Conflating the fact-value dichotomy might lead us to conclude that "homosexuality is wrong." Keeping facts and values separate precludes this possibility.
Well that was a whole lot of nothing. I asked you to present these theorists to strengthen your argument and you merely expanded your old argument with more pladitudes.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: We know the absurdness of believing that nature will contradict itself if humans do not exist. Earth has existed before humanity. Humans create the Aristotelian laws of logic just like how humans create art, language, and customs. The universe does not intrinsically value Aristotelian logic just like it does not intrinsically value art, language, and customs. We disagree with each other probably from semantics.
We know the absurdness of believing that nature will contradict itself if humans do not exist. Earth has existed before humanity.
Humans create the Aristotelian laws of logic just like how humans create art, language, and customs. The universe does not intrinsically value Aristotelian logic just like it does not intrinsically value art, language, and customs. We disagree with each other probably from semantics.
Therefore you are conceding that the Aristotelian laws exist outside of the human consciousness, in nature in fact because you declared it is absurd to believe that nature will contradict itself if humanity is not around. Therefore the Aristotelian laws are not subject to simple subjectivism of the human consciousness but are in fact an objective set of laws that can be understood by the whole of humanity.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
We have a Thread Graveyard? Since when?
Anarchist Cain:Therefore you are conceding that the Aristotelian laws exist outside of the human consciousness, in nature in fact because you declared it is absurd to believe that nature will contradict itself if humanity is not around. Therefore the Aristotelian laws are not subject to simple subjectivism of the human consciousness but are in fact an objective set of laws that can be understood by the whole of humanity.
You have defined "subjectivism" as values and opinions that humans hold. You have define "objectivism" in this context as the reverse of "subjectivism." Therefore, we can label all scientific facts as "objective" in this sense. If you mean this, then I agree with you.
However, I disagree with the notion the Aristotelian laws are true because they are undeniable, and to deny them causes a performative contradiction. Rather, the Aristotelian laws are true because humans assign them as true. They are not "proven true" nor "deducted by an argument by performative contradiction." They are true because humans normative value the three Aristotelian laws.
We have to remind us that the three Aristotelian laws (identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction) are normative, not descriptive. Unlike scientific facts, these Aristotelian laws are not facts of the universe. Rather, humans assume them as true, similar to the notion when human assume mathematical axioms are true. Like mathematical axioms, these three laws cannot by proven to be true. They are assumed as true for granted. No arguments can prove the Aristotelian laws to be "true." Humans value them, and assume them as true like how humans assume mathematical axioms as true.
The performative contradiction argument is an invalid proof. It derives values from facts. However, as pointed out above, the Aristotelian laws are normative, not descriptive. If the performative contradiction argument thus derives the normative Aristotelian laws from descriptive facts. This confuses the fact-value dichotomy, then values, in this case, are grounded by reason alone. Therefore, the performative contradiction argument is similar to ethical apriorism. Rather than deriving normative ethical commands as in ethical apriorism, this derives the normative laws from logic.
Most of the sarcasm by nirgrahamUK and wilderness is based on the invalid performative contradiction argument in "proving" the three normative Aristotelian laws of logic. We have just refuted the validity of your sarcasm.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
We have to remind you that the three Aristotelian laws (identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction) are normative, not descriptive.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Anarcho-Mercantilist:However, I disagree with the notion the Aristotelian laws are true because they are undeniable, and to deny them causes a performative contradiction. Rather, the Aristotelian laws are true because humans assign them as true. They are not "proven true" nor "deducted by an argument by performative contradiction." They are true because humans normative value the three Aristotelian laws.
If they are undeniable then that presupposes they are true. Contradiction does not exist in nature...this is a law that you claim is undeniable...truth+undeniability= Objective truth
Anarcho-Mercantilist:We have to remind us that the three Aristotelian laws (identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction) are normative, not descriptive. Unlike scientific facts, these Aristotelian laws are not facts of the universe. Rather, humans assume them as true, similar to the notion when human assume mathematical axioms are true. Like mathematical axioms, these three laws cannot by proven to be true. They are assumed as true for granted. No arguments can prove the Aristotelian laws to be "true." Humans value them, and assume them as true like how humans assume mathematical axioms as true.
Here we go again in a circular argument. The three laws of Aristotle exist outside of the human consciousness. The human consciousness can realize them however they cannot be changed by subjective whims. You have yet to show where contradiction exists in nature. Are we to assume that apples will suddenly become oranges once humanity dies? Will A stop equaling A merely because humans are gone? I think you are purposely beating around the bush on this issue.
Anarchist Cain: I think you are purposely beating around the bush on this issue.
I think you are purposely beating around the bush on this issue.
AM is wrong. Just as zefreak is wrong. Their arrogance is a disgrace.
I'm taking a break from the community got things to do, so, will not be able to respond to any more posts.
Juan:We have to remind you that the three Aristotelian laws (identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction) are normative, not descriptive. Except they are descriptive, not normative. You can't violate the law of non-contradiction and still say anything meaningful. Here's a performative contradiction for you : A says to B "Language can't convey meaning".
The statement "Language can't convey meaning" is tautologically contradictory. By definition, language has meaning. Therefore, you are establishing a contradiction by making incompatible definitions. This refutes it. Therefore, it does not require a performative contradiction argument to refute it.
Also, it does not require a performative contradiction argument to refute "normative ethical subjectivism." It contradicts the definition of ethics itself if we allow anyone to prescribe any moral code. Moral codes, by definition, applies to groups of individuals, and not differ from the group members themselves.
These two examples does not require performative contradiction arguments to refute them. Rather, they are self-contradictory by its incompatible definitions.
Anarchist Cain:Are we to assume that apples will suddenly become oranges once humanity dies?
Why has that have anything to do with the law of contradiction? The law of contradiction does not explain the properties of the universe as in the sense of how the law of gravity explains a property of the universe. Rather, the law of contradiction helps humans use science and logic, which in turn, how science and logic explains the universe.
The universe does not obey the law of contradiction as in the sense of how the universe obeys the law of gravity. Humans normatively value the law of contradiction for its application to logic. Humans do not normatively value the law of gravity.
Humans use the law of contradiction instrumentally, to reach a goal. Humans use this law to perform logic. However, humans do not use the law of gravity instrumentally. Humans use the law of gravity descriptively to explain the universe.
My writing might seem ambiguous to you. Let me know everything in this writing that seems unclear to you.
The statement "Language can't convey meaning" is a tautologically contradictory. By definition, language has meaning. Therefore, you are establishing a contradiction by making incompatible definitions. This refutes it. Therefore, it does not require a performative contradiction argument to refute it.
These two examples does not require performative contradiction arguments to refute them.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:The universe does not obey the law of contradiction as in the sense of how the universe obeys the law of gravity
how about just as gravity exerts its effects without humans understanding or describing it. the law of non-contradiction is fully in effect similarly.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
The universe does not obey the law of contradiction as in the sense of how the universe obeys the law of gravity.
nirgrahamUK:how about just as gravity exerts its effects without humans understanding or describing it. the law of non-contradiction is fully in effect similarly.
Humans use the word "gravity" to describe an observable phenomenon within the universe. The universe does not obey the law of gravity in the sense of how humans obey legal codes. Humans name "gravity" to describe a behavior within the universe observed by them. In this sense, human can arbitrarily name laws to describe any observable phenomenon. Humans can name an infinite amount of laws to describe the behavior of the universe.
However, humans create laws such as the law of gravity to describe only the interesting behaviors and properties of the universe. They leave out the uninteresting behaviors and properties of the universe. Humans create the "law of gravity" because humans find this description interesting and useful.
The law of non-contradiction is not an observable phenomenon like how the law of gravity is. The law of non-contradiction is just an idea created in the human mind.
Oh god, now we are going down the Nietzche memory hole of ever changing titles. Who cares what we call the law of non-contradiction as long as the definition is truthful. You acknowledge the point that the laws exist outside of the human mind yet you are caught up simply on what it is called. Truly a petty point.
The law of non-contradiction is just an idea created in the human mind.
What do you mean by "existing outside the human mind"?
Juan:The law of non-contradiction is just an idea created in the human mind. Ultimately all ideas are created in the human mind (for the time being at least). That piece of information is not really news...nor exceedingly useful. Unicorns are also an idea created in the human mind. But it's a different kind of idea.
This means that we agree with each other, but have different views of how the law of non-contradiction "describe" the universe.
Would you name some specific examples of how the law of non-contradiction "describe" the universe?
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Would you name some specific examples of how the law of non-contradiction "describe" the universe?
contradictory things dont happen ,,,,
nirgrahamUK: Anarcho-Mercantilist:Would you name some specific examples of how the law of non-contradiction "describe" the universe? contradictory things dont happen ,,,,
Contradictory things do happen. For example, humans believe in contradictory economic doctrines. Humans are part of the universe. Therefore, the universe suffers from contradictory economic doctrines. Furthermore, the law of non-contradiction does not describe the universe.
A's happen, proof: people believe in A's.
logical fallacy?
nirgrahamUK: A's happen, proof: people believe in A's. logical fallacy?
You still have not explained what you mean by "entities in the universe does not contradict itself."
AM:Would you name some specific examples of how the law of non-contradiction "describe" the universe?
Juan: AM:Would you name some specific examples of how the law of non-contradiction "describe" the universe? The law of non-contradiction matches fundamental physical facts. If you burn a chunk of coal, the coal changes from the unburnt state to the burnt state and energy is released. The coal can't be both burnt and unburnt at the same time. The states are mutually exclusive.
By definition, "burnt" means not unburnt. It contradicts itself by its definitions. Perhaps you can clarify it by using "the law of not contradicting definitions" instead of "the law of non-contradiction"?
Guys, he is just using a Nietzche nihilistic term viewpoint. It is ridiculous to continue this argument. In fact I propose that it is absurd to continue discussion with AM himself. What we just experienced is 20 pages of AM not disproving Aristotelian law but complaining about what it is called.
Juan:Language does not have meaning 'by definition'. It's in the nature of language to convey meaning. It is language's purpose to convey meaning. So, if you try to use language to communicate the alleged fact that language can't communicate anything, your very action is contradictory in a sense. I'd call that a performative contradiction, but feel free to call it something else. The fact remains, though, that the assertion "language conveys meaning" can't be denied.
Language conveys meaning in the sense that it communicates ideas between individuals.
Language does not convey meaning in the sense that it does not communicate one's feelings, such as qualia.
Juan:So, do we agree that "normative ethical subjectivism" is contradictory and so is a meaningless concept ?
We agree with this contradiction.
Juan: Well, would you present an example of a performative contradiction ? It seems part of the disagreement is simply related to naming conventions...
We will list some ethical doctrines that rest on the argument by performative contradiction:
I disagree with all those doctrines, not on logical consistency, but on logical soundness. This includes the liar paradox.
The liar paradox has the same problems as Hoppe's "self-ownership" argument. It assumes a presupposition that either a honest truth or lie, similar to Hoppe' performative contradiction of either full-blown Lockean property rights or no property rights. The liar paradox does not assert half-truths, half-lies, partial honesty, just like Hoppe's "self-ownership" argument does not assert partial property rights or slave. They all force one to choose the only option.
Juan:The law of non-contradiction matches fundamental physical facts.
Good luck explaining the quantum world with such physical laws.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Juan:Ever heard of Schrödinger ?
Or Max Born for that matter?
What we just experienced is 20 pages of AM not disproving Aristotelian law but complaining about what it is called.
laminustacitus: Juan:The law of non-contradiction matches fundamental physical facts. Good luck explaining the quantum world with such physical laws.
The laws of Aristotelian logic are normative, not descriptive. Therefore, they do not describe the physical world.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: laminustacitus: Juan:The law of non-contradiction matches fundamental physical facts. Good luck explaining the quantum world with such physical laws. The laws of Aristotelian logic are normative, not descriptive. Therefore, they do not describe the physical world.
You completely missed the point of my quip.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:The laws of Aristotelian logic are normative, not descriptive. Therefore, they do not describe the physical world.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Anarcho-Mercantilist:The laws of Aristotelian logic are normative, not descriptive. Therefore, they do not describe the physical world.Logic is the science of correct reasoning. We apply it to statements made about the physical world. Hope that helps.
Logic does describe the physical world, but the laws of logic do not.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Logic does describe the physical world, but the laws of logic do not.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Anarcho-Mercantilist:Logic does describe the physical world, but the laws of logic do not.They are axioms.
If by "axiom" you mean an assumed truth that is not proven, then I agree with you that the laws of logic are axioms.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:If by "axiom" you mean an assumed truth that is not proven
Knight_of_BAAWA: Anarcho-Mercantilist:If by "axiom" you mean an assumed truth that is not provenI mean something which is necessarily true. Apodictic.
Then I disagree with you. The argument by performative contradiction should not prove the laws of logic. Aristotle had it wrong when he "proved" the law of identity by the argument by performative contradiction.
Juan:Axioms are necessarily true, they are not arbitrary premises. Also, you never explained what, according to you, is a performative contradiction.
If he were to explain the terms he uses, then I hereby make the prediction that one of two events will happen.
1. He will later contradict himself
2. He will change the topic
Anarchist Cain: He will later contradict himself
He will later contradict himself
The performative contradiction argument is not a sound argument. So even if you will believe that I contradicted myself, I will not.
Logical consistency does not imply logical soundness. Performative contradiction arguments are consistent. However, they are unsound.
It is impossible to deny the performative contradiction argument when we work within the Aristotelian system. In order to refute the Aristotelian system, we must work outside the Aristotelian system to examine its defects.