Dubin

Given:
-A paradox is defined as a condition that is contradictory, such as with itself or with laws of existence or truth.
-An irony is defined as a condition that contradicts that which is expected.
->Since irony contradicts, it is paradox.

-All our knowledge is composed of assumptions that are backed up by evidence.
->Hence, we do not definitively know that events have to be free of contradiction; we arrive at that conclusion through experiment and testing, and therefore a paradox only contradicts our expectation of consistency.

Now then,

1)Are there any topics that already cover this?
2)Given that the answer to 1) is no, what is the difference between paradox and irony?
3)What flaws in my reasoning prevent me from seeing this?

Any and all responses are welcome.

John Page

Truth.
Paradoxes.

For something to be true, two things have to be the same. Many found their logic on a law of identity that denies that two things can be the same. In which case nothing can be true.

This is the ironical, paradoxical, truth.

Cheers, john

rainbow walking

Hi Dubin,
Interesting...consider the paradox of life and death.

We know that both life and death exist. We know what each concept means.

The atheist claims life ends at the grave and the theist claims not so.

Now consider the irony of basing one's worldview on a profession of claiming to know more about that of which we know nothing, than on that of which we are learning more about each day we avoid that of which we know nothing.:banghead:

spacer1

rainbow walking,

If having a viewpoint on whether or not " life ends at the grave," means:
then, according to your logic, the theist, who has a viewpoint on the matter, must also claim to know more about post-death experience than life. :banghead:

spacer1

rainbow walking,

Reading back over your post, it occurred to me you may have been pointing out the paradox of having a viewpoint on the matter at all. If so, please accept my apology and ignore my previous post.

rainbow walking

No apology necessary.

spacer1

rainbow walking,

Then I retract my apology.

I would still question whether anyone "bases their worldview" on theism or atheism, or whether these beliefs are more a consequence of other beliefs a person holds about, "that of which we are learning more about each day we avoid that of which we know nothing," i.e., experiences in life.

jpbrooks

Very briefly, I'm not sure whether this topic has been covered.
The term "paradox" might be loosely defined as a "condition that is contradictory ...". However the term "irony" need not involve such a condition. And I'm not certain whether "events" that actually occur (as opposed to "events" that can or might occur) can even be contradictory at all.

rainbow walking

rw: Okay, then I retract my "no apology necessary" and demand an immediate apology.

Ideologies come and go and man do they ever.

NonHomogenized

Not neccessarily. A paradox is a condition which is internally/inherently contradictory. Irony is incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs, or, more specifically, it usually denotes a situation in which such occurs in a prominent or notable manner.

What might be expected is not inherent or internal to what occurs, and, as such, not all irony is paradoxical (though a situation containing a paradox is likely to be ironic).

Example:
A man came upon an idea that seemed to be a paradox. So, he posted a challenge on the internet, confident that it would prove to be a paradox. The statement was as follows: "A paradox is, only if it isn't."
Ironically, his own statement was used against him when someone wrote him, saying "Then, for your statement to be a paradox, it must not be a paradox."

(no, it makes no sense, and wasn't very funny. It happens when I'm at work and it's 3am)

Note that the paradox contains mutually exclusive conditions (paradox AND not paradox)

The irony lies in the idea that the man was confident that his idea would prove to be paradoxical, and that very idea was used to prove that it wasn't. (Further irony is the paradox that one could use a condition of an object to prove that object lacked that very condition, and, even more irony is that I find such a convolution hilarious, making a very unfunny anecdote quite amusing for me.)

And if that didn't confuse you even further, I don't know what will

Seriously, I hope that helped at least a little...