Square Circles, Contradictions, & Higher Dimensions
Square Circle
[quote=Citizendium]A square circle would be a shape or object in Euclidean space that is both square and circular. Philosophers, especially working in philosophy of language and metaphysics, use the phrase "square circle" as an example of a contradiction in terms, that is, a phrase (as opposed to a proposition), two parts of which describe qualities that cannot both exist in the same thing at the same time.
It is also often used as an example of an "impossible object." Probably the most interesting philosophical question about square circles, and other such "impossible objects," is whether they enjoy any sort of existence or being. The 19th century German philosopher, Alexius Meinong, famously held that while such objects obviously do not exist, they nevertheless enjoy a queer sort of "being." Other philosophers have held that "square circle" is literally nonsense, that is, lacks any significance or meaning. An interesting feature of that position, however, is that it denies significance despite the fact that the words "square" and "circle" do individually have meaning, and we can say what their truth conditions are (i.e., necessary and sufficient conditions of their being true).
"Clever schoolboys" may point out that a three-dimensional shape may be square on one plane, and circular on an orthogonal plane. To their disappointment, philosophers stipulate that does not count as a square circle.
Note that this does not have to do with the geometrical problem of squaring the circle, that is, constructing a circle that has the same area as a square using only a compass and straightedge. [/quote]
A square circle has become a byword for contradictions.
Contradiction: for p, a proposition, p & ~p.
Contradictions are strictly forbidden in classical logic (categorical, sentential, and predicate logic): Law Of Noncontradiction! because of Ex Contradictione [Sequitur] Quodlibet (The Principle Of Explosion)
Law of noncontradiction: for p, a proposition, ~(p & ~p)
2D = 2 Dimensional (space/world)
3D = 3 Dimensional (space/world)
Consider now a 3D object, a right cylinder with height 4 units and diameter 4 units. Depending on the angle of the light you shine on it, the shape of its shadow will change. If you try every possible angle you should get the following two shadow shapes:
1. A square with sides 4 units
2. A circle with diameter 4 units
Note these shadows are cast on a flat surface i.e. the square and the circle are two distinct 2D projections of the aforementioned 3D cylinder with height 4 units and diameter 4 units.
Mutually contradictory propositions (a square & a circle) could be shadows (Plato's Allegory Of The Cave) of propositions (3D cylinder) that exist in higher dimensions.
Taking this a step further, have a look at nets. The aforementioned 3D cylinder can be cut along its height and unfolded to yield a 2D rectangle with width = 4 units and length = the circumference of the circle (approx. 12.57 units).
In summary, propositions that we know of in this world, could be transported to a higher level world, given a twist, the resultant higher level proposition projected back onto our world as a contradictory propositions.
Basically: Proposition T in our world (2D rectangular net) -> Taken to a higher world (3D) -> T given a twist (3D cylinder/T') -> Projected back into our world as two mutually contradictory propositions (S/a square & ~S/a circle).
P. S. Go wild with dimension.
Addendum 1
The 3D cylinder T' (1 single 3D dimensional proposition) casts 2 fundamentally different 2D shadows S, square and ~S, circle (2 contradictory 2D propositions). As litewave remarked, it's about perspective - from a certain point of view, the proposition S is true and from another the contradictory proposition ~S is true.
~S is, as is obvious, the negation of S and without perspective to sort things out, we would've been left scratching our heads with the contradiction S & ~S.
Now, consider us (2D world denizens) trying to come to terms with the mutually incompatible claims about our world, S and ~S. We could assume a higher/deeper reality/world which contains the claim (3D proposition T'). How can we discover T'? My best guess is to imagine the various 3D shapes that could cast a square shadow/S (cube, cylinder, to name a few) and a circular shadow/~S (cone, sphere, cylinder, etc.). Which 3D shape is common to both sets? The cylinder of course and just like that we've discovered a 3D proposition that matches the shadows cast in our 2D world.
In plain English, we can discover truths about, how shall I put it?, higher realities if only we don't consider contradictions (p & ~p) as false but treat both p and ~p as true albeit from different angles.
Take theism vs atheism. The former claims that God exists while the latter claims God doesn't exist. In the current philosophical climate, it's believed that this amounts to a contradiction and ergo, one of the two has to be false.
If, on the other hand, we treat both theism and atheism as true but from different points of view (2D shadows, square & circle) we could use them to home in on the higher truth (3D cylinder) that's part of a higher reality.
The point to all this being contradictions (square circles like atheism vs theism, physicalism vs nonphysicalism, etc.) are actually not contradictions. They're just different sides (anekantavada, many-sidedness, Jainism) of the same greater truth that resides in a world the next level up so to speak.
Addendum 2
The idea that I want to convey here has illustrious origins in Jainism and it's called anekantavada (not-one-sidedness or many-sidedness) aka perspectivism in the western world. Enough said!
If we get the right angle for the light shining on the 3D cyclinder - my experiments show that this sweet spot lies between the angle of light that casts a square shadow and the angle of light that casts a circular shadow - what we'll get is the correct shadow/projection of the 3D cylinder - two ellipses (the two circles of the 3D cylinder) with two parallel lines joining the circumferences of these circles and this is the true 2D shadow/projection of a 3D cylinder. Let's call this true 2D shadow/projection of a 3D cylinder C.
What's interesting is C is produced when the angle of light shining on the 3D cylinder is in the middle between that angle which produces a square shadow and the other angle that produces a circular shadow. As some say,
[quote=Some guy]There are two sides to every story and somewhere in the middle lies the truth.[/quote]
This, I suppose, is the Buddha's madhyamaka/the middle path.
It appears there is such a thing as right perspective? the point of view that reveals the truth, the real truth, the whole truth!
[quote=Citizendium]A square circle would be a shape or object in Euclidean space that is both square and circular. Philosophers, especially working in philosophy of language and metaphysics, use the phrase "square circle" as an example of a contradiction in terms, that is, a phrase (as opposed to a proposition), two parts of which describe qualities that cannot both exist in the same thing at the same time.
It is also often used as an example of an "impossible object." Probably the most interesting philosophical question about square circles, and other such "impossible objects," is whether they enjoy any sort of existence or being. The 19th century German philosopher, Alexius Meinong, famously held that while such objects obviously do not exist, they nevertheless enjoy a queer sort of "being." Other philosophers have held that "square circle" is literally nonsense, that is, lacks any significance or meaning. An interesting feature of that position, however, is that it denies significance despite the fact that the words "square" and "circle" do individually have meaning, and we can say what their truth conditions are (i.e., necessary and sufficient conditions of their being true).
"Clever schoolboys" may point out that a three-dimensional shape may be square on one plane, and circular on an orthogonal plane. To their disappointment, philosophers stipulate that does not count as a square circle.
Note that this does not have to do with the geometrical problem of squaring the circle, that is, constructing a circle that has the same area as a square using only a compass and straightedge. [/quote]
A square circle has become a byword for contradictions.
Contradiction: for p, a proposition, p & ~p.
Contradictions are strictly forbidden in classical logic (categorical, sentential, and predicate logic): Law Of Noncontradiction! because of Ex Contradictione [Sequitur] Quodlibet (The Principle Of Explosion)
Law of noncontradiction: for p, a proposition, ~(p & ~p)
2D = 2 Dimensional (space/world)
3D = 3 Dimensional (space/world)
Consider now a 3D object, a right cylinder with height 4 units and diameter 4 units. Depending on the angle of the light you shine on it, the shape of its shadow will change. If you try every possible angle you should get the following two shadow shapes:
1. A square with sides 4 units
2. A circle with diameter 4 units
Note these shadows are cast on a flat surface i.e. the square and the circle are two distinct 2D projections of the aforementioned 3D cylinder with height 4 units and diameter 4 units.
Mutually contradictory propositions (a square & a circle) could be shadows (Plato's Allegory Of The Cave) of propositions (3D cylinder) that exist in higher dimensions.
Taking this a step further, have a look at nets. The aforementioned 3D cylinder can be cut along its height and unfolded to yield a 2D rectangle with width = 4 units and length = the circumference of the circle (approx. 12.57 units).
In summary, propositions that we know of in this world, could be transported to a higher level world, given a twist, the resultant higher level proposition projected back onto our world as a contradictory propositions.
Basically: Proposition T in our world (2D rectangular net) -> Taken to a higher world (3D) -> T given a twist (3D cylinder/T') -> Projected back into our world as two mutually contradictory propositions (S/a square & ~S/a circle).
P. S. Go wild with dimension.
Addendum 1
The 3D cylinder T' (1 single 3D dimensional proposition) casts 2 fundamentally different 2D shadows S, square and ~S, circle (2 contradictory 2D propositions). As litewave remarked, it's about perspective - from a certain point of view, the proposition S is true and from another the contradictory proposition ~S is true.
~S is, as is obvious, the negation of S and without perspective to sort things out, we would've been left scratching our heads with the contradiction S & ~S.
Now, consider us (2D world denizens) trying to come to terms with the mutually incompatible claims about our world, S and ~S. We could assume a higher/deeper reality/world which contains the claim (3D proposition T'). How can we discover T'? My best guess is to imagine the various 3D shapes that could cast a square shadow/S (cube, cylinder, to name a few) and a circular shadow/~S (cone, sphere, cylinder, etc.). Which 3D shape is common to both sets? The cylinder of course and just like that we've discovered a 3D proposition that matches the shadows cast in our 2D world.
In plain English, we can discover truths about, how shall I put it?, higher realities if only we don't consider contradictions (p & ~p) as false but treat both p and ~p as true albeit from different angles.
Take theism vs atheism. The former claims that God exists while the latter claims God doesn't exist. In the current philosophical climate, it's believed that this amounts to a contradiction and ergo, one of the two has to be false.
If, on the other hand, we treat both theism and atheism as true but from different points of view (2D shadows, square & circle) we could use them to home in on the higher truth (3D cylinder) that's part of a higher reality.
The point to all this being contradictions (square circles like atheism vs theism, physicalism vs nonphysicalism, etc.) are actually not contradictions. They're just different sides (anekantavada, many-sidedness, Jainism) of the same greater truth that resides in a world the next level up so to speak.
Addendum 2
The idea that I want to convey here has illustrious origins in Jainism and it's called anekantavada (not-one-sidedness or many-sidedness) aka perspectivism in the western world. Enough said!
If we get the right angle for the light shining on the 3D cyclinder - my experiments show that this sweet spot lies between the angle of light that casts a square shadow and the angle of light that casts a circular shadow - what we'll get is the correct shadow/projection of the 3D cylinder - two ellipses (the two circles of the 3D cylinder) with two parallel lines joining the circumferences of these circles and this is the true 2D shadow/projection of a 3D cylinder. Let's call this true 2D shadow/projection of a 3D cylinder C.
What's interesting is C is produced when the angle of light shining on the 3D cylinder is in the middle between that angle which produces a square shadow and the other angle that produces a circular shadow. As some say,
[quote=Some guy]There are two sides to every story and somewhere in the middle lies the truth.[/quote]
This, I suppose, is the Buddha's madhyamaka/the middle path.
It appears there is such a thing as right perspective? the point of view that reveals the truth, the real truth, the whole truth!
Comments (75)
:up: :100:
Quoting TheMadFool
Thanks for sharing. Another interesting article to read about.
This OP reminds me when we debated about Gödel's mathematics principles. Human mind can be sometimes so spectacular. As you shared with us in the first paragraph, we can develop in our mind a completely contradiction: Square circle.
Metaphysics can allow us to go further than our possibilities. It is the Great act of dreaming in "practice." This is the main reason why we can create or build aspects that previously we can think they are "impossible". Later on, giving a chance to our knowledge, we can improve the reality and get all what we were dreaming about.
(example: apart from 3D images, appoint a journey to the moon or Mars. This project looked impossible back in the day...)
I guess more important than a paradox (or whatever we can call this metaphysical issue :D) it is about how our mind can do excellent things. Thus, go further than reality could be.
A contradictory proposition affirms that something has and does not have the same property. But a proposition that affirms that something looks like a circle from one perspective and does not look like a circle from another perspective is not a contradiction because the property of "looking like a circle from one perspective" is not the same property as "looking like a circle from another perspective".
Sometimes it is said for emphasis that a contradictory proposition affirms that something has and does not have the same property at the same time, and/or in the same sense, but these additions can be seen as already included in the meaning of the phrase "same property".
There's no contradiction here.
Yep. Nothing to see here.
Quoting Banno
Please read my addendum to the OP.
:up: I suspect people are bored with reality and what it puts on the table. They thirst for more and if you look at extreme sports and how popular they are, I'd say people are willing to pay the ultimate price just to get that adrenaline rush. If you like bungee jumping, why not just cut to the chase and go skydiving! That's how some of us seem to approach the issue. I'm all for it despite the many funerals that have been/are/will be held on this account.
Square circle as a genuinely contradictory object would look like a square and like a circle from the same perspective (and at the same time and under all other same circumstances). Such an object cannot exist.
Indeed, how right you are. It is the same perspective - a 2D perspective of a 3D proposition.
This is what leads me away from reading your posts.
A square circle would be a regular polygon with four sides, the perimeter of which is equidistant from a given point on the same plane.
Draw me one of those.
In the taxicab metric the unit circle is a square. There's a picture of a square circle on that page. A circle is the set of points equidistant from a given point. If you choose your distance function appropriately, a circle can be a square.
Note that this is very different than an unmarried bachelor. A bachelor by definition is a male who is not married. so that a married bachelor is indeed a contradiction.
But a circle and a square are NOT defined as each other's opposites, nor are they mutually exclusive at all. People should stop using square circles as an example of a contradiction, because in fact there are square circles.
Note that if you define the distance between two points to be the sum of the horizontal and vertical distance between them, then the distance of each red point from the blue point is the same in each case, and that these are therefore square circles. (This is the Wiki image).
Quoting Banno
Done. It all depends on how you define distance. Standard Euclidean distance (square root of the sum of the squares of the respective differences of the coordinates) is only one way of defining distance. Even in physics, Euclidean distance is only a special case of a more general way of defining distance.
Many thanks for the challenge. The point I' making is that there are only apparent contradictions, not real ones. If given a contradiction, p & ~p, we can very easily extricate ourselves from this rather painful predicament by saying p from one point of view and ~p from another (apparent contradiction) and not from the same point of view (real contradiction).
Can you go through the addendum I appended to the OP. There are some critical changes.
I did some reading up and what my OP is about matches what Jains had to say about truth 2,500 years ago (yeah! that's how old my idea is). Jainism has a concept called Anekantavada (many-sidedness) which your posts echo. According to anekantavada, contradictions can be, in a sense, resolved, with the help of perspectivism. Given a contradiction p & ~p, we can say that p from one angle and ~p from another angle and not p & ~p from the same angle.
Thanks a million!
As for the claim that a square circle is a contradiction, all I can say is it's a square from one standpoint and a circle from another standpoint (like a 3D cylinder) but not both a square and a circle from the same standpoint.
In Euclidean space they are mutually exclusive and I tacitly assumed this kind of space. Thanks for pointing out that there are also spaces with such a metric that a circle looks like a square.
Interesting post. For once I understood some math, weird math to be precise.
However, I believe that squares and circles are mutually exclucive unless you want to demonstrate the existence of a square circle and mind you, not by tweaking definitions as you've done with the so-called taxicab metric.
I'm glad that you brought up the matter of mutual exclusivity vis-à-vis contradictions. There's another side to the story of a proposition p and its negation ~p that needs to be taken into consideration viz. p and ~p are also, in addition to being mutually exclusive, also jointly exhaustive i.e. between p and ~p, all there is must be either p or ~p, the residue being the null set { }.
Why I felt comfortable with a square circle as a contradiction is because a circle is not a square and thus I assigned squares to S and circles to ~S. S and ~S and voila, we have a contradiction (mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive). Too, a contradiction is defined as false in all possible worlds and a square circle is also false in all possible worlds given we stick to standard definitions.
In what kind of space are there square circles? I'm curious.
A genuinely contradictory object cannot exist so any object in reality can be only seemingly contradictory.
There are no genuine contradictions. That's the law :point: The Law of Noncontradiction ~(p &~p), only apparent contradictions that can be resolved with anekantavada (many-sidedness/perspectivism).
However, apparent contradictions could be shadows of higher truths in higher realities from different perspectives, projected onto our world.
In the space with taxicab metric that fishfry mentioned. You may object that that is actually not a circle but he did use the standard definition of a circle: a set of points with a fixed distance from some point.
You can still formulate a genuinely contradictory proposition by insisting on the same perspective but such a proposition would not correspond to any object in reality.
He messed around with the definition of distance - the way a taxicab moves around a city, a well-planned city with all roads at right angles to each other.
That's wordplay. "genuinely contradictory proposition" and "such a proposition would not correspond to any object in reality" is a contradiction. Impossible! Nevertheless, from different viewpoints both are true.
Didn't know that! :up: There's more than one way to skin a cat although it escapes me why anyone would want to do that.
Insistence on the same perspective was part of the meaning of a contradiction already in ancient Greece:
Aristotle's law of noncontradiction states that "It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
(emphasis mine)
Aristotle meant to the object itself not the act of belonging to another.
Three Versions of the Principle of Non-Contradiction
I don't see that the article attributes the phrase "in the same respect" to the object. It seems more likely that "in the same respect" refers to the act of belonging.
We're talking past each other. I agree with you that real contradictions are impossible. If someone claims a contradiction as real, say p & ~p, all we have to do to resolve it is to say p from one angle, ~p from another angle but not the case that p & ~p from the same angle. The p & ~p was only an apparent contradiction.
Literally the article says:
Sure. But what is the use of this? It's not as if understanding that things look differently from different perspectives is going to bring about world peace.
:up: Jainism's Anekantavada.
[quote=Wikipedia]Anek?ntav?da (Hindi: ???????????, "many-sidedness") is the Jain doctrine about metaphysical truths that emerged in ancient India. It states that the ultimate truth and reality is complex and has multiple aspects. Anekantavada has also been interpreted to mean non-absolutism, "intellectual Ahimsa", religious pluralism, as well as a rejection of fanaticism that leads to terror attacks and mass violence. Some scholars state that modern revisionism has attempted to reinterpret anekantavada with religious tolerance, openmindedness and pluralism.[/quote]
Once you realize that disagreements, the seedbed of all violence, including wars, arise from looking at issues from only one side and not from all sides, including your enemy's your reason to take up arms will be gone. World Peace!
Quoting TheMadFool
Your reason for taking up arms might then be gone, indeed, but not your enemy's.
That's because they haven't looked at our differences from all sides - anekantavada failure.
Quoting baker
Any hard evidence for this?
Why should they?? They are your enemies. Why should they care about seeing things the way you see them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallekhana#:~:text=It%20is%20the%20religious%20practice,all%20physical%20and%20mental%20activities.
If they want the truth, they should care but,
[quote=Abu Hirawa (The Misfits)]Ok, I believe you but there are those who are not interested in the truth, or in justice. It (death) won't come swiftly.[/quote]
Ok.
It seems more natural to relate "at the same time" to "be" rather than to "object":
An object can be potentially F and potentially not F, but it cannot be actually F and actually not F at the same time.
While all along, you get to be the arbiter of truth, eh?
Where did you get that from? Anekantavada takes into account all parties involved, favoring none over the other. My views are the same as anyone elses, including yours.
However, that we disagree, a contradiction threatening to rear its ugly head unless it hasn't already, suggests a higher truth who's projections are the two of us. Don't you wanna what that truth is? I want to.
But the object is the real subject of this Aristotle axiom. The act of potentially transforme is experienced by the object itself. The verb “to be” is just intrinsic.
Your words.
That is your view. Surely you're aware that other people don't think this way. It's safe to say that most people don't believe that your views are the same as theirs, and certainly not as relevant as theirs.
Underneath your optimism, idealism, egalitarianism burns a fire of supremacism. :blush:
You've, I'm afraid, missed the point of anekantavada which is to point out that there are no real contradictions but only apparent contradictions. Your whole argument is predicated on the former. In true anekantavada spirit, my response would be you're right but, for better or worse, I'm not wrong. Let's just leave it at that. Feel free to disagree though.
Quoting baker
From a certain perspective that could be true and I feel sorry that I could be read that way:
[quote=(Die Hard)] After all your speeches and posturing you're nothing but a common thief.[/quote]
All I can say is I'm just an African ape, like Richard Dawkins takes great pains to point out when referring to h. sapiens, trying to make sense of faer world.
Later I realized that we can make up whatever words we want from our personal or societal context to represent reality. Words are shorthand for reality, and to discuss contradiction in terms, we must first understand the full meaning of reality behind the words. For example, my "rounded squared" could be labeled as a "Square circle" if I and others around me thought that was an acceptable definition. But that is all it would be, a squarish figure that was rounded.
In the case of the philosophical square circle, we are looking at the geometric proved definitions of 2D objects. When the idea of a "square circle" is presented, its really shorthand for, "A geometrically proven and defined 2D object that is both a square and a circle at the same time." Of course that cannot exist.
Now in your case of perspective, you're introducing a 3D object. But that does not fit the original definition's tie to reality, that it is only a 2D object. Could we call your 3D object's perspective a "square circle"? Sure, we can call anything, anything within a context. But is that the same as the context of the philosophical square circle argument in 2D geometry? No.
No. What you're failing to acknowledge is that in your quuest for egalitarianism, you're bulldozing over the opposition, or at least trying to do so.
Hey, false humility makes for false pride!
This is a romanticism that someone living in the real world wouldn't indulge in.
The Middleness of the Path
Now if you treat the verb "square" in 2D geometry on a flat plane containing a circle, and square the area of the circle, the squared circle looks like a circle because its squareness is recessive (to look at). Yet we lengthened a straight line in it (perhaps by the square root of 2). Alternatively we may double the length of that line.
If it is sliced into segments, it shows two square corners. Thus circles are quite squary anyway: we only bring it out when slicing them.
Ah yes. So when the Nazis come to take me to the gas chambers I should try to see things from their point of view.
Yes, you're right a square circle is about the 2D world. However,
[quote=Thich Nhat Hanh]The finger (square circle) pointing at the moon (contradiction) is not the moon (contradiction).[/quote]
Suppose there's a truth regarding, say, God in a 3D world. Call this G. We, in our 2D world, can only see shadows of G. Theists believe God exists (square shadow) and atheists believe God doesn't exist (circle shadow). Put the two parties on the same stage and we have a contradiction: God exists & God doesn't exist (square circle).
The point is, if both theists and atheists are true (a contradiction), we have to accept the reality of a square circle. But, we can't, a square circle makes zero sense. The immediate reaction is, as per recommendations of classical logic, is to declare one side as wrong/false.
However, there's another way - anekantavada (not-one-sidedness or many-sidedness) in which both theists are true and atheists are true but since they're from different points of view, there's no contradiction, no square circle.
I guess what I want to get across is there are many alleged square circles out there (theism-atheism, physicalism-nonphysicalism, realism-antirealism, etc.) but these aren't real/true contradictions, they only appear to be, their resolution achieved with the aid of anekantavada (many-sidedness).
So, yeah, I couldn't draw you a 2D square circle but that wasn't what I intended to do. You're supposed to have paid attention to thesis-antithesis pairs, some of which I mentioned above, the very essence of disagreement, discord, strife, and chaos which are, all said and done, square circles, no?
The horror, suffering, and anguish of a situation is all the more reason to invoke anekantavada. One party involved has failed to give the other's point of view the attention it deserves.
It's romanticism that has brought about change in this world, a change for the better. All the good there was/is/will ever be was born in the minds of dreamers.
Quoting EricH
Quoting TheMadFool
This is so bizarrely wrong I can't tell if you're being ironic - but I will take your words at face value.
Anekantavada can work if there are reasonable people on both sides - but in this flawed real world we live in that is far too often not the case.
On my side I HAVE given the other party's point of view the attention it deserves. The other party is a psychopath intent on killing me - AND - who is incapable of listening to my point of view.
I have two choices - defend myself or be killed.
It isn't you!
I get this now. I guess I didn't know (as a youngster) I had to restrict myself to being Euclidian. There was no harm in the syllabus (then) and no harm in our doing things that weren't on it either.
That's still not a contradiction though. That is a contradiction of beliefs, but not of facts. In the theists case, there is a God. But honestly, neither the atheists nor theists know of God, because they can only see parts.
In their particular case, the flashes of God revealing themselves to people would be the only thing they could agree exists. Atheists cannot deny it exists if its observable, but they might call it something different than a theist would. A theist might say its God, an atheist might say its the Goldbring effect. Each might have some extra beliefs or connotations they attach to the God parts, but at the end of the day, the only thing they really know are that these things exist.
Its like seeing part of a square, and saying you know a square. You can't know what a square is until you see it, and you define it in a way that is provable and repeatable. The 2D shapes are not different people's or cultures opinions of squares or circles either. They are clearly defined and provable entities. One person might say, "Squares come from God," and another might say, "Squares are a natural formation," but all of that is irrelevant for what IS, and that is that it is a square.
Perspective merely gives you a portion of what you can know. When you claim the knowledge of what you have gives you knowledge outside of your perspective, that is a failure of reasoning and knowledge, not a contradiction with another view point.
But I am a person who believes that contradictions are indicators of what is not real. Reality has no contradictions. Apparent contradictions are when a person is confused or misinformed about reality. I believe you either have the truth, a portion of the truth, or you hold beliefs which aren't true. Two people cannot hold two contradictory truths. One is right, or both are wrong. I see the poetry in what you mean by Anekantavada, but it does not hold up on technical scrutiny.
God exists & God doesn't exist, is not a contradiction???
Quoting Philosophim
So, now, it's a contradiction!
As you can see, you're, like everyone else, is trying to make sense of a square circle and, intriguingly, you have resolved it employing the technique the Jains recommended - by shifting between different persepctives. I preach, you practice! Excellent!
It deserves such attention? "Deserves" by whose standards?
Waiting for others only makes one a victim, and if persisted in, eventually, a martyr.
That's your side of the story.
Q.E.D.
No, no, I want to see it from your point of view. That's why I want to know what your assumptions are.
Then you'd need to give up anekantavada.
That anekantavada is a non-viable outlook on life, given that one who practices it will be crushed by other people.
[quote=Wikipedia] The goal of SPI (Indian Protection Service) was to protect the well-being of natives, and Cândido Rondon created its motto: die if need be, never kill.[/quote]
What do you mean by that? I cant see the connection with the comment before.
Well, experience tells me that those who have to face death on a daily basis make the best of companions.
... for what? Misery?
"The Only Good Indian is a Dead Indian"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/541345#:~:text=%22The%20Only%20Good%20Indian%20Is%20a%20Dead%20Indian%22%3B%20the,traditional%20life%2Dstyle.
The form "the only good (the best) X is a dead X" has wider applications.
The ethnophaulism is used also in political context: "The only good commie is a dead one". But why is the best philosopher a dead one? They ask too much?
"Anekantavada, (Sanskrit: “non-one-sidedness” or “many-sidedness”) in Jainism, the ontological assumption that any entity is at once enduring but also undergoing change that is both constant and inevitable."
Maybe...
Quoting baker
[quote=Emmett (Quiet Place 2)]The people that are left, what they've become, are not the kinda people worth saving.[/quote]