Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Philosophy
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Mar 20, '17, 6:44 pm
Ben Sinner Ben Sinner is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2010
Posts: 1,014
Religion: Catholic
Default A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

Why can't a thing be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way?

How is the Law of Contradiction pre-supposed in every single assertion we make, even when one denies it?

"If one believes LNC is false. They also have to believe LNC is true as well." Ok, so what's wrong with LNC being both true and false at the same time?

Maybe a thing can be and not be at the same time, we just aren't perceiving it or believe we are only witnessing one or the other?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Mar 20, '17, 9:13 pm
dshix's Avatar
dshix dshix is offline
Veteran Member
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: October 7, 2012
Posts: 9,803
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

Doesn't it seem self-evident?

You can't both be a white person and a black person at the same time.
You can't both believe that God exists and not believe he exists at the same time.
You can't exist and not exist at the same time.

This doesn't really require a lot of proof. Our faculty of reason is designed to understand logic, and the human reason can see that this principle holds true.

If you're interested in seeing it discussed, you can look Aristotle's Metaphysics.

As to the question of "what's wrong with LNC being both true and false at the same time": it's nonsense. To say that something can be both be and not be "true and not true at the same time" at the same time is complete nonsense. People who really take something like that seriously are either navel gazing, suffering mental illness, or both.
__________________
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Mar 20, '17, 9:14 pm
JuanFlorencio JuanFlorencio is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2015
Posts: 1,240
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Sinner View Post
Why can't a thing be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way?

How is the Law of Contradiction pre-supposed in every single assertion we make, even when one denies it?

"If one believes LNC is false. They also have to believe LNC is true as well." Ok, so what's wrong with LNC being both true and false at the same time?

Maybe a thing can be and not be at the same time, we just aren't perceiving it or believe we are only witnessing one or the other?
Yes, maybe you are right, and also wrong at the same time when you believe that.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Mar 20, '17, 9:17 pm
johnnyc176 johnnyc176 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2010
Posts: 3,400
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

Is Jesus both the Way, the Truth and the Life and not?
__________________
To the degree that someone loves Christ's Church,
to that degree he has the Holy Spirit. - St. Augustine




St. Charles Lwanga pray for us!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Mar 21, '17, 6:56 am
ProdglArchitect ProdglArchitect is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2012
Posts: 5,312
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanFlorencio View Post
Yes, maybe you are right, and also wrong at the same time when you believe that.
That is, literally, impossible. You cannot be both correct about something, and wrong about it; at least not with something which has no distinct parts.

It's the first and most fundamental law of logical deduction and reasoning, the Law of Non-Contradiction, and it is upon this law that all reason is founded.

If something has multiple parts, then I can be right about some parts and wrong about others, but in terms of any single aspect, I cannot be both right and wrong at the same time.

If this law is not true, then all of human reasoning breaks down, and we can know nothing. However, the assertion that the law of non-contradiction is false is a self-defeating premise. If the LNC is false, then we cannot trust our own reason which lead us to determine that it is false, therefore we cannot reason our way into asserting that it is false.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Mar 21, '17, 9:56 am
paduard paduard is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2010
Posts: 488
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

I think it is called a paradox.
paduard
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Mar 21, '17, 11:01 am
o_mlly o_mlly is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2008
Posts: 1,592
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Sinner View Post
Why can't a thing be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way?

How is the Law of Contradiction pre-supposed in every single assertion we make, even when one denies it?

"If one believes LNC is false. They also have to believe LNC is true as well." Ok, so what's wrong with LNC being both true and false at the same time?

Maybe a thing can be and not be at the same time, we just aren't perceiving it or believe we are only witnessing one or the other?
Eastern philosophers often negate the LNC.
Dialetheism appears to be a much more common and recurrent view in Eastern Philosophy than in the West. In ancient Indian logic/metaphysics, there were standardly four possibilities to be considered on any statement at issue: that it is true (only), false (only), neither true nor false, or both true and false. Buddhist logicians sometimes added a fifth possibility: none of these. (Both positions were called the catushkoti.) The Jains went even further and advocated the possibility of contradictory values of the kind: true (only) and both true and false.
Which tends to end dialogue with western philosopher in search of the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Mar 21, '17, 11:28 am
dshix's Avatar
dshix dshix is offline
Veteran Member
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: October 7, 2012
Posts: 9,803
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by o_mlly View Post
Eastern philosophers often negate the LNC.
Dialetheism appears to be a much more common and recurrent view in Eastern Philosophy than in the West. In ancient Indian logic/metaphysics, there were standardly four possibilities to be considered on any statement at issue: that it is true (only), false (only), neither true nor false, or both true and false. Buddhist logicians sometimes added a fifth possibility: none of these. (Both positions were called the catushkoti.) The Jains went even further and advocated the possibility of contradictory values of the kind: true (only) and both true and false.
Which tends to end dialogue with western philosopher in search of the truth.
How do these Eastern philosophers try to justify this odd form of "logic"?
__________________
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Mar 21, '17, 11:30 am
ProdglArchitect ProdglArchitect is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2012
Posts: 5,312
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dshix View Post
How do these Eastern philosophers try to justify this odd form of "logic"?
I'm curious as well. If a statement can be both true and false, then there is no way to know if it is true or false. If you can't determine the validity of a statement, you can't advance; at least not in a meaningful way.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Mar 21, '17, 11:36 am
o_mlly o_mlly is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2008
Posts: 1,592
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dshix View Post
How do these Eastern philosophers try to justify this odd form of "logic"?
I failed to note my source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/ Read all about it.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Mar 21, '17, 11:39 am
dshix's Avatar
dshix dshix is offline
Veteran Member
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: October 7, 2012
Posts: 9,803
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by o_mlly View Post
I failed to note my source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/ Read all about it.
I have a feeling this is going to painful to read. I'll get to it.
__________________
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Mar 21, '17, 12:21 pm
ProdglArchitect ProdglArchitect is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2012
Posts: 5,312
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by o_mlly View Post
I failed to note my source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/ Read all about it.
All of their examples deal with subjective interpretation, that is, the interpretation of a set of characteristics which, when summed, produce a conclusion; but who's interpretation is dependent on viewpoint.

A couple of the examples they give is the transition state of a person moving from room to room. At one point they are in a room, at another point they are not. They claim that there must be a point during the transition when they are both in the room, and not in the room. This is no basis for the assertion that this point must exist. Viewer A may see the person as inside the room, and viewer B may see them as outside of the room, but the basis of this decision is subjective, therefore it cannot be used to say that they are both inside and outside of the room. The paradox only exists because the frame of reference from which the conclusion is being drawn is not constant. If, prior to observation, the people had decided on an objective set of criteria to dictate when a person is inside and outside of a room (i.e., an objective basis from which to measure the "truthfulness" of a statement), then this paradoxical state is impossible, because at one point they do not meet the requirements, and at the next point they do meet them.

The other issue is that all of their examples deal with multiple parts, and combining those parts into a single whole conclusion. As I said above, it is possible for the state of individual parts to shift while other parts remain true such as the person's arm is now outside of the room, while his torso is within it). However, it is not possible for the arm to be inside of the room and outside of it. When the arm is then applied to "whole" of the person, then parts of the person can be inside of the room and parts can be outside of the room; however, this does not disprove the LNC since the individual aspects which comprise the whole are still either in or out of the room.



I also find it telling that the article's author simple dismissed the primary argument against this position, one penned by Aristotle, without so much as a cursory explanation of what that arguments is. He simply says that it is convoluted and circular, without providing any evidence to back that claim up. It is generally telling when the person arguing a point is unwilling to address major arguments against their position and instead dismiss them offhand. That would be like me saying that I believe that the Earth is flat, and dismissing all the physical and observable evidence to the contrary as forgeries not worth my time dissecting. You just can't do that when trying to make a scholarly point.

Last edited by ProdglArchitect; Mar 21, '17 at 12:35 pm.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Mar 21, '17, 12:39 pm
o_mlly o_mlly is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2008
Posts: 1,592
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProdglArchitect View Post
All of their examples deal with subjective interpretation, that is, the interpretation of a set of characteristics which, when summed, produce a conclusion; but who's interpretation is dependent on viewpoint.

A couple of the examples they give is the transition state of a person moving from room to room. At one point they are in a room, at another point they are not. They claim that there must be a point during the transition when they are both in the room, and not in the room. This is no basis for the assertion that this point must exist. Viewer A may see the person as inside the room, and viewer B may see them as outside of the room, but the basis of this decision is subjective, therefore it cannot be used to say that they are both inside and outside of the room. The paradox only exists because the frame of reference from which the conclusion is being drawn is not constant. If, prior to observation, the people had decided on an objective set of criteria to dictate when a person is inside and outside of a room (i.e., an objective basis from which to measure the "truthfulness" of a statement), then this paradoxical state is impossible, because at one point they do not meet the requirements, and at the next point they do meet them.

The other issue is that all of their examples deal with multiple parts, and combining those parts into a single whole conclusion. As I said above, it is possible for the state of individual parts to shift while other parts remain true such as the person's arm is now outside of the room, while his torso is within it). However, it is not possible for the arm to be inside of the room and outside of it. When the arm is then applied to "whole" of the person, then parts of the person can be inside of the room and parts can be outside of the room; however, this does not disprove the LNC since the individual aspects which comprise the whole are still either in or out of the room.



I also find it telling that the article's author simple dismissed the primary argument against this position, one penned by Aristotle, without so much as a cursory explanation of what that arguments is. He simply says that it is convoluted and circular, without providing any evidence to back that claim up. It is generally telling when the person arguing a point is unwilling to address major arguments against their position and instead dismiss them offhand. That would be like me saying that I believe that the Earth is flat, and dismissing all the physical and observable evidence tot he contrary as forgeries not worth my time dissecting. You jsut can't do that when trying to make a scholarly point.
Self-evident truths, as are the three fundamental laws of logic, cannot be argued for or defended by logic. They can only be accepted or rejected. If not accepted then no meaningful dialogue can occur between the one who denies and the one who accepts.

For example, the "flat earth" argument is not self-evident and must be argued. On the other hand, all men are created with equal rights is self-evident.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Mar 21, '17, 12:43 pm
ProdglArchitect ProdglArchitect is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2012
Posts: 5,312
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by o_mlly View Post
Self-evident truths, as are the three fundamental laws of logic, cannot be argued for or defended by logic. They can only be accepted or rejected. If not accepted then no meaningful dialogue can occur between the one who denies and the one who accepts.

For example, the "flat earth" argument is not self-evident and must be argued. On the other hand, all men are created with equal rights is self-evident.
What makes that assertion more self-evident than the assertion that something cannot be both true and false? In fact, the later proposition has been treated as true for far, far longer than the former.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Mar 21, '17, 1:00 pm
Ben Sinner Ben Sinner is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2010
Posts: 1,014
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: A thing can't be True and Not True at the same time and in the same way. Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProdglArchitect View Post
All of their examples deal with subjective interpretation, that is, the interpretation of a set of characteristics which, when summed, produce a conclusion; but who's interpretation is dependent on viewpoint.

A couple of the examples they give is the transition state of a person moving from room to room. At one point they are in a room, at another point they are not. They claim that there must be a point during the transition when they are both in the room, and not in the room. This is no basis for the assertion that this point must exist. Viewer A may see the person as inside the room, and viewer B may see them as outside of the room, but the basis of this decision is subjective, therefore it cannot be used to say that they are both inside and outside of the room. The paradox only exists because the frame of reference from which the conclusion is being drawn is not constant. If, prior to observation, the people had decided on an objective set of criteria to dictate when a person is inside and outside of a room (i.e., an objective basis from which to measure the "truthfulness" of a statement), then this paradoxical state is impossible, because at one point they do not meet the requirements, and at the next point they do meet them.

The other issue is that all of their examples deal with multiple parts, and combining those parts into a single whole conclusion. As I said above, it is possible for the state of individual parts to shift while other parts remain true such as the person's arm is now outside of the room, while his torso is within it). However, it is not possible for the arm to be inside of the room and outside of it. When the arm is then applied to "whole" of the person, then parts of the person can be inside of the room and parts can be outside of the room; however, this does not disprove the LNC since the individual aspects which comprise the whole are still either in or out of the room.



I also find it telling that the article's author simple dismissed the primary argument against this position, one penned by Aristotle, without so much as a cursory explanation of what that arguments is. He simply says that it is convoluted and circular, without providing any evidence to back that claim up. It is generally telling when the person arguing a point is unwilling to address major arguments against their position and instead dismiss them offhand. That would be like me saying that I believe that the Earth is flat, and dismissing all the physical and observable evidence to the contrary as forgeries not worth my time dissecting. You just can't do that when trying to make a scholarly point.
That article was also made by a renowed believer in dialetheism as well, Graham Priest. I was kind of shocked to see that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
6597CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
6138Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
5162Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
4627Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: neweggs
4287Poems and Reflections
Last by: Purgatory Pete
4053OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Fischli
3290For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: GLam8833
3261Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Herculees
2822Let's Empty Purgatory 2
Last by: tawny
2448SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:58 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.