Grizzly_Recluse
New Member
Happily married
Posts: 46 
Likes: 28
Ethnicity: American
Country: America
Region: Southern California
Location: Right here, dude
Ancestry: English and Welsh
Religion: pantheism
Relationship Status: Happily married
Age: 65
Philosophy: Spinoza, pantheism
|
Post by Grizzly_Recluse on Jul 21, 2019 19:58:51 GMT
Logical analysis: P1: All misfits should be inside this forum P2: I'm a misfit C: I should be inside this forum Wait a minute... But, a misfit does not belong in a group, by definition ...in which case I don't belong in this forum ...which makes me a misfit ...so I should indeed be in this misfit forum! I'm confused! It's a paradox. I think you get the idea. This illustrates the importance of defining your terms in philosophy. solution:P1 is self-contradictory. It says "misfits should be inside" which means they belong inside, but "misfit" means "does not belong," so it is self-contradictory. Therefore P1 is false. The argument is invalid. The conclusion is false. Get it? Your turn to give me a logical paradox.  |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jul 21, 2019 21:01:11 GMT
That was a good one! But I feel I'll have a misfit because I'm not good with making logical paradoxes. But if I'll think of one I'll come back  |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jul 21, 2019 21:32:21 GMT
Logical analysis: P1: All misfits should be inside this forum P2: I'm a misfit C: I should be inside this forum Wait a minute... But, a misfit does not belong in a group, by definition ...in which case I don't belong in this forum ...which makes me a misfit ...so I should indeed be in this misfit forum! I'm confused! It's a paradox. I think you get the idea. This illustrates the importance of defining your terms in philosophy. solution:P1 is self-contradictory. It says "misfits should be inside" which means they belong inside, but "misfit" means "does not belong," so it is self-contradictory. Therefore P1 is false. The argument is invalid. The conclusion is false. Get it? Your turn to give me a logical paradox. That is the arranged derangement that irrationally stumped Bertrand Russell. It is nothing but a silly misuse of words caused by taking seriously some imaginary theoretical bubble. A self-inflicted contradiction is not a paradox. There's no reason you have to define a "misfit" as not fitting in anywhere. It's like claiming that we can't call a team a "loser" unless it never wins any of its games. |
|
Grizzly_Recluse
New Member
Happily married
Posts: 46
Likes: 28
Ethnicity: American
Country: America
Region: Southern California
Location: Right here, dude
Ancestry: English and Welsh
Religion: pantheism
Relationship Status: Happily married
Age: 65
Philosophy: Spinoza, pantheism
|
Post by Grizzly_Recluse on Jul 22, 2019 0:24:21 GMT
yea after I posted it I realized it's not an actual paradox. Oh well it was fun.
Hey did you hear the one about,
"A philosopher walks into a bar..."
?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 24, 2019 22:36:27 GMT
Grizzly_Recluse Does nothing exist? If it exists, then it is not nothing. If it does not exist, then how can we use it to effectively perform all sorts of vital calculations? So it must exist, but then it is not nothing! Which is a contradiction!! I know the answer to this paradox, but I want to see what everyone else says first.
|
|
