Ludwig Wittgenstein & The Law of Noncontradiction
[quote=Ludwig Wittgenstein]Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language.[/quote]
The Law of Noncontradiction "states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time." ~(p & ~p)
We can say (language) things we cannot mean (logic). For instance: The apple is all red AND The apple is not all red! There, I said/wrote a frank contradiction but when I attempt to think it, I draw a complete blank (Zen koans, mushin no shin).
My hunch is that the language center (LC) of our brain is not entirely under the control of our, to borrow a computer term, Arithmetic and Logic Unit (ALU) of our brains. There seems to be some kind of communication or other gap between the LC and the ALU and I claim that this gap and probably other as of yet unknown aspects of our brains is the reason for much of our confusion (bewitchment by language).
P. S. We think in words! :chin:
The Law of Noncontradiction "states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time." ~(p & ~p)
We can say (language) things we cannot mean (logic). For instance: The apple is all red AND The apple is not all red! There, I said/wrote a frank contradiction but when I attempt to think it, I draw a complete blank (Zen koans, mushin no shin).
My hunch is that the language center (LC) of our brain is not entirely under the control of our, to borrow a computer term, Arithmetic and Logic Unit (ALU) of our brains. There seems to be some kind of communication or other gap between the LC and the ALU and I claim that this gap and probably other as of yet unknown aspects of our brains is the reason for much of our confusion (bewitchment by language).
P. S. We think in words! :chin:
Comments (25)
I don't know! It just looked interesting to me - I can say things I can't mean and not just in a mundane way like empty promises, etc. but in an extremely violent way for minds (I can utter the impossible!)
I've noticed (not only) you also can say things that don't mean anything to anybody else.
I concur! Maybe my logic, my premises, possibly both are a bit off if you catch my drift. Thinking is so hard! :sad:
Language has both a logical and a qualitative aspect to its structure. When we use or relate to it (in time), we contribute directional energy (ch’i).
The Law of Non-contradiction says that we cannot state ‘the apple is all red’ AND ‘the apple is not all red’ at the same time. But it’s possible to nevertheless think this contradiction a-temporally, by reserving judgement. The ‘blank’ you draw in entertaining this contradiction in thought points to the instability of dualism as a structure of reality. But it’s not really a blank, because you still exist in relation to the contradictory thought - the question is, in what sense? What remains in the nature of this relation, when the logical quality of language appears to cancel itself out?
For Wittgenstein in relation to language, meaning is use. In that sense, the battle in philosophy seems to be against interference in reasoning by our contribution of directional energy (ch’i). But Wittgenstein found this to be a losing battle to some extent. Because the irrationality of our fears and desires must be factored back in, if we are to bring wisdom or accuracy in judgement to anything we do or say.
@Banno has said, more times than I can count, that logic is a language! Well, we could treat the laws of (natural) deduction as syntax and as far as semantics goes there's a cent per cent overlap between logic & natural languages. That's as far as I could go. However, a question that comes to mind is this: is there logical poetry? Grammar, I believe, is shot to pieces in verse (poetic license). So irrationality could be, in a sense, logical poetry (rules? what rules?)
True, the blank in my mind which you alluded to may not be nothing. That gives me something to think about. I feel like I've been given a loaded gun and told to shoot, but at nothing! How do I shoot? Analysis paralysis. The mind is to be shut down as it were and (simulating what we believe is death - cessation of all thinking). Contrary to what I thought, we can experience death (virtual death).
:chin:
There are many different languages, and some have more logic to them than quality. Logic, in the sense that Banno uses it, is a written language that reduces qualitative or semantic content, as well as any directional energy, to symbols. When we ‘use’ logic as a language, we’re examining the logical structure only of a particular relation, which we portray as a set of linear propositions.
As for logical poetry, I’ve always considered poetry to be about affect, in the sense that it is a carefully crafted logical and qualitative structure in itself, through which our energy is directed. Have you read poetry written by AI? Even when there appears to be no logic (ie. no formal grammatical structure), how the quality in each concept-word is positioned relative to the others determines how we relate to it. We assume there is some logical structure in language. Most (human) poetry is meant to be spoken, so the sounds (alliteration, onomatopoeia, etc) can add another dimension of quality.
Quoting Agent Smith
The point is that you feel...
Poets should be arrested and put away for a million years...for rule-breaking at such scales and severity. Wouldn't you agree? Where's the language police when we need 'em?
:snicker:
G'day.
Wether we like it or not, language is one the most complex barriers we have to face since we arevjust kids.
Quoting Arthur Schopenhauer
Agree with Schopenhauer's quote. But that's representation is based on our language
Because you said one thing and then negated it with the second statement. Each statement on it's own means something, but both statements together mean nothing. Think of not saying anything as the state of 0. Saying something is a positive assertion, therefore 0+1 = 1. Negating what you just said is basically subtracting from what you just said, essentially 1-1=0, so you ended up not saying anything at all. You say something with the first statement and then negate what you said in the second. Your mind only draws a blank after the second statement.
You essentially made a string of meaningless scribbles. What makes a scribble a word and not just a scribble? It is that the scribbles refer to what is the case. If you haven't referred to what is the case, then you essentially have just drawn scribbles on the screen, and didn't say anything at all.
Note that each assertion on their own are both positive assertions. You are asserting what is the case, either the apple is all red or it isn't. By using the second sentence, you negate what you just said. There would be no contradiction if both statements didn't share something in common, as in talking about the same apple and the same color, "red" in that is red or it isn't. There is no contradiction if you are talking about different apples in each sentence, or if you are talking about different colors in each statement. The apple is all red, and the apple is not all green are not contradictions.
That's the difference between drawing a picture of an actual event and drawing a picture of a meaningless design. Both are pictures, but only one actually represents something. With one you can show others what was the case. With the other you hang on your wall to show others that you that you have enough resources to waste on trivial things, just like many philosophers have enough time on their hands, thanks to not having to worry about where their next meal is coming from or evading predators, to make art from words. There's a difference between being meaningful with words and being artful with words. Ask Banno and he thinks every use of words is an artful use, as in every use is a game.
Nope.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7296/page/p1
To briefly summarize what l have understood from this is that , mathematical operations do not depend on agreed meaning but an agreed use.
Further more , if we agree to use p and ~p --> p OR let p and ~p --> ~p . The problem of being stuck after facing a contradiction is solved.
For your consideration:
The official reason put forward by logicians as to why contradictions are a big no-no ( :heart: ) is that it, in combination with disjunction introduction, leads to thr trivialization of classical logic (re ex falso quodlibet aka principle of explosion) - all statements can be proven true.
Your comments about contradictions is, to my reckoning, an entirely different approach to them viz. that ~p (the negation of p) and p (the affirmation of p) are antithetical/antipodal/incompatible in a way that I'm unable to articulate at the moment.
You see what this means, oui?
The logician has no problem at all with contradictions per se. If it were possible to somehow prevent the detonation (ex falso quodlibet), contradictions are defanged as it were and become harmless and permissible.
You, on the other hand, like me, will take issue because our beef with contradictions has nothing to do with the ex falso quodlibet; our difficulty is something else entirely - it feels more fundamental, more intuitive, more true. You attempted to explicate the point using analogies. Kudos.
Alhamdulillah!
It is. But just keep pushing on. Your positive affect, and your humility on the forums - refreshing and rare - are the perfect foundation for a genuine love of wisdom.
P.S. Don't let the (occasional? :razz: ) know-it-all on the boards stifle your spirit of experimentation and exploration! Maturation of philosophical thought takes patience: patience with others and patience with oneself.
Yarhamuk Allah!
The LNC doesn't state that you cannot make contradictory statements; if it were impossible to make contradictory statements then the LNC would be redundant, or would never have occurred to anyone in the first place, so I'm not seeing the problem here.
Well, kindly justify why...we're allowed to state contradictions?
I can't believe you asked that question.
You are very wise, a seasoned player! :up: