Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 11, 2022 0:32:35 GMT
1. Reality is self-evident.
2. "Self-evident" is not defined except as "Reality"; "Reality" is not defined except as "Self-evident".
3. The alternation of "reality" and "self-evident" does not have further comparisons thus is obscure.
4. In stating "reality is self-evident and this statement is obscure" a further comparison, that of "obscure" is made through the terms "reality" and "self-evident" thus is not obscure.
5. "Reality is self-evident and this statement is obscure; this prior statement is not obscure" is an obscure statement thus "obscurity" in comparison to "not obscure" results in the same problem of definition as point 2.
6. "Obscurity" and "not obscure" alternate; this is "obscure and not obscure".
7. Definition is thus contradictory and the term "contradiction" follows the same problem of point 4, as the term "contradiction" is introduced, while the term "contradiction" follows the same problem as point 6, as the term "contradiction" is "not contradictory".
8. This alternation between terms assumes "alternation" as "obscure/not obscure" and "contradictory/not contradictory" thus the term, that of "alternation" collapses in on itself as "alternation" is assumed first and foremost on nothing and later defined retroactively through "obscure/not obscure" and "contradictory/not contradictory".
9. The term "alternation" results in "no alternation" as it does not alternate (as it is first assumed and later defined); yet this absence of alternation between "alternation" and "no alternation" paradoxically results in alternation between "alternation" and "no alternation" as one term is defined by what it is not; what it is not is defined by what it is, thus a repeat of point 2 occurs.
10. No definition can be made; this is a definition. This definition is not a definition.
11. This argument is valid but nonsensical therefore validity can be found in non-sense.
2. "Self-evident" is not defined except as "Reality"; "Reality" is not defined except as "Self-evident".
3. The alternation of "reality" and "self-evident" does not have further comparisons thus is obscure.
4. In stating "reality is self-evident and this statement is obscure" a further comparison, that of "obscure" is made through the terms "reality" and "self-evident" thus is not obscure.
5. "Reality is self-evident and this statement is obscure; this prior statement is not obscure" is an obscure statement thus "obscurity" in comparison to "not obscure" results in the same problem of definition as point 2.
6. "Obscurity" and "not obscure" alternate; this is "obscure and not obscure".
7. Definition is thus contradictory and the term "contradiction" follows the same problem of point 4, as the term "contradiction" is introduced, while the term "contradiction" follows the same problem as point 6, as the term "contradiction" is "not contradictory".
8. This alternation between terms assumes "alternation" as "obscure/not obscure" and "contradictory/not contradictory" thus the term, that of "alternation" collapses in on itself as "alternation" is assumed first and foremost on nothing and later defined retroactively through "obscure/not obscure" and "contradictory/not contradictory".
9. The term "alternation" results in "no alternation" as it does not alternate (as it is first assumed and later defined); yet this absence of alternation between "alternation" and "no alternation" paradoxically results in alternation between "alternation" and "no alternation" as one term is defined by what it is not; what it is not is defined by what it is, thus a repeat of point 2 occurs.
10. No definition can be made; this is a definition. This definition is not a definition.
11. This argument is valid but nonsensical therefore validity can be found in non-sense.