Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 24, 2021 13:06:12 GMT
Surely everyone is heard of retorsion, but maybe not know the name of it. It's been using so many times as an objection to different arguments. The scheme of it is simple:
1) Everything that is X can be divided by the most general rule R (while R and X occupy the same level) into two (few) groups or categories: A and B
2) Which group or category (A or B) the most general rule R refers?
3) It refers to A or B this rule says something contradictory (since it tells lie about itself); the rule refers to none of those two – this rule is incomplete (since there are some other groups)
Some examples to it:
a) The positivism's rule reads: there are only two types of sentences a priori math, or a posteriori physical. To which category the positivism's rule refer?
b) The Popper's rule reads: there are people who are driven by tolerance rules, and the ones who are driven by the intolerance. To which rule the Popper's rule belong?
c) A certain rule of the bivalence reads: there are two types of rules exist which are being used by people: to tell the truth, or to lie. By which rule someone was driven to categorise the bivalence rule?
If instead of making restriction for using recursion, and retorsion as well, we may limit it by accepting there's no categories or we don't know how to categorise something except for do it occasionally or without real knowledge about them.
Another way to try to doubt this annoying retorsion to criticize its own critic moment: what makes any retorsion to deny using the recursion? If we aren't sure whether or not the number of groups or categories is limited, we never know to which category the overall rule belongs.
1) Everything that is X can be divided by the most general rule R (while R and X occupy the same level) into two (few) groups or categories: A and B
2) Which group or category (A or B) the most general rule R refers?
3) It refers to A or B this rule says something contradictory (since it tells lie about itself); the rule refers to none of those two – this rule is incomplete (since there are some other groups)
Some examples to it:
a) The positivism's rule reads: there are only two types of sentences a priori math, or a posteriori physical. To which category the positivism's rule refer?
b) The Popper's rule reads: there are people who are driven by tolerance rules, and the ones who are driven by the intolerance. To which rule the Popper's rule belong?
c) A certain rule of the bivalence reads: there are two types of rules exist which are being used by people: to tell the truth, or to lie. By which rule someone was driven to categorise the bivalence rule?
If instead of making restriction for using recursion, and retorsion as well, we may limit it by accepting there's no categories or we don't know how to categorise something except for do it occasionally or without real knowledge about them.
Another way to try to doubt this annoying retorsion to criticize its own critic moment: what makes any retorsion to deny using the recursion? If we aren't sure whether or not the number of groups or categories is limited, we never know to which category the overall rule belongs.