tronvillain

Actually, I can't recall ever ansering a question with that either. I am more inclined towards "Sort of..." or "In a way..." than "Well, yes and no..." or related phrases.

Doubting Didymus

I suspect that most questions that are answered with 'yes and no' are not actually breaking the law of the non-contradiction at all.

Consider:

Yes and no.

Can we logically say this? Yes, I think so, because what we really mean is not 'I both love and do not love my brother at the same time' what we mean is either:

'during a period of time I sometimes feel love for my brother, and sometimes do not: never both in the same instance'

OR:

'at the same instance, I experience both the love of my brother and the hatred of my aduterous enemy'

For this to violate the law, you would have to accept that love and hatred are contradictory, which I personally do not. I think it is very possible to both hate and love at the same time, the emotions are not true opposites.

Devilnaut

Even if they were, who says we can't feel opposite emotions at the same time?

Did our language take into account our laws of non-contradiction as it was being created? Did it have magical foreknowledge of everything, too, so that using it we would only refer to things in 100% accurate ways? of course not. Logic is a language much more formal and precise than english, and just because you can use logic to interpret english sentences in nonsensical ways isn't a failing of logic.

(edit to add that i'm not disagreeing with DD )

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

The sense in which I use the term 'opposite' would indeed mean that you could not have them both at the same time. I would consider 'love' and 'no love' to be opposite emotions in the above case, so I think the laws of non contradiction hold for the above example. I can not feel both love and no love for the same entity at the same instant. I CAN feel both love and hatred, or love at some instants but not others, or in fact, love of some ASPECTS of a person, and no love of other aspects. All of these examples justify the answer 'yes and no' without violating the laws.

WJ

Interesting... . I must aplaude, again, Adrian for bringing issues of Being into the mix, if you'll pardon the pun. And I see another distinction that relates to the incompatability of human language and math, which are both in some way a means of expression. But are they the same? One seems to be relative to expression of Being; the other descriptive and concerned with relationships and objects and the apriori.

Leaving that for a moment and returning to the love thang, I think the discussion of love is a good analogy for the potential violation of the rule. Though admittingly I'm no expert logician, my gut tells me there is something wrong, but am willing to keep an open mind. For instance, why wouldn't having 'a little' love be in contrast to the rule? In mathematics, you can't be 'a little right' can you? The number one is absolute in that it acuratley and absolutely describes one-ness. (The fact that we can count physical objects that are real makes it universal.)

Now taking it one step further, the emotion love cannot be described in the same manner. This is primarily because its nature relates to Being which is dependent upon time for its description and function and understanding of its qualities. Understanding the truth and nature of math/apriori logic does not require that process.(EDIT: the example of the 'mindless' requirement from the necessary operation of a calculator demonstrates one distinction of an apriori mathematical truth.) So if I can be 'a little' in love, what does that really mean in the face of the absolute truth from 1+1?

Again, it is not necessary to understand the nature of mathematical truth to ascertain its meaning. But love's nature must be determined absolute in order to make a correct judgement about its truth (the feeling of it being a half-truth by saying that I love my brother 'a little'.)? In other words, what comprises complete full absolute true love? In math we know what comprises its truth, but love...?

Does that make sense?

Walrus

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Adrian Selby

Sorry WJ, I don't know how my posts relates to the assertion of Being in any context, I merely wanted to point out that believeing the two laws does not preclude being able to answer a question 'well, yes and no'.

Logic has its place, the assertion to the contrary I find problematic.

WJ

Andrian!

I believe you are overlooking the obvious. I'm sure that you realize that your 'hypothetical' proposition relative to 'the brother' and all the associated feelings of love automatically brings Being into the mix.

Are we on the same page? Perhaps I've missed something as well.

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

WJ, having "dealt" with you for a while now, may I offer a polite suggestion?

State your argument clearly and succinctly, without trying so hard to be supercilious for once and you might actually get a response to your position that doesn't entail a backhanded desire to simply smack the shit out of you.

You consistently think that you're baiting us in some manner and whenever any of us actually bite, we immediately discover there's not even a hook, just a sinker.

Just a friendly suggestion. Take it how you will.

Are you stating that "Being" (i.e., human existence) has some sort of quality to it that in some manner precludes the use of the cognitive tool we call "logic?"

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Keith Russell

Walrus:

There are things I don't know, and things I won't ever know.

But I don't believe there is anything I can't know.

Keith.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

In saying 'the laws of logic are BS', isn't one really asking 'permission' to be irrational?

(Sorry, but that seems...strange, to say the least.)

One is free to be as rational--or as irrational--as one wishes, though there certainly cannot be any 'reason' for choosing irrationality...

LOL.

Keith.