Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 26, 2023 20:18:06 GMT
Aristotle had his faults. Am I against Aristotle? No. Am I for him? No. Why? Example:
The laws of logic applied to themselves result in the negation of said laws. If the law of excluded middle is applied to the law of identity (equality) and the law of non-contradiction (inequality) then either the law of identity is true and non-contradiction is false or the law of identity is false and the law of non-contradiction is true.
1. If the law of identity is true and the law of non-contradiction is false then A=A but A=-A in which case A equals everything thus is meaningless.
2. If the law of identity is false and the law of non-contradiction is true then A=/=A and A=/=-A in which case A equals nothing thus is meaningless.
3. In one respect A equals everything and in another respect A equals nothing, dependent upon the choice made because of the 'or' operator of excluded middle. Either way A is meaningless as everything is without compare thus has no distinctions therefore is nothing; nothing is without distinctions thus is inseparable from everything as there are no distinctions to separate the two.
Now as to why I don't disagree with Aristotle:
All the laws exist as the manifestation of distinctions, and even though distinctions result in contradictions (as one thing must stand apart from another thing to gain identity), these distinctions stand nonetheless as they form our reality regardless of if they make sense or not. They are what they are and to negate them requires one to first observe them and this act of observation of a thing, regardless of its level of truth, necessitates existence through observation alone.
The laws of logic applied to themselves result in the negation of said laws. If the law of excluded middle is applied to the law of identity (equality) and the law of non-contradiction (inequality) then either the law of identity is true and non-contradiction is false or the law of identity is false and the law of non-contradiction is true.
1. If the law of identity is true and the law of non-contradiction is false then A=A but A=-A in which case A equals everything thus is meaningless.
2. If the law of identity is false and the law of non-contradiction is true then A=/=A and A=/=-A in which case A equals nothing thus is meaningless.
3. In one respect A equals everything and in another respect A equals nothing, dependent upon the choice made because of the 'or' operator of excluded middle. Either way A is meaningless as everything is without compare thus has no distinctions therefore is nothing; nothing is without distinctions thus is inseparable from everything as there are no distinctions to separate the two.
Now as to why I don't disagree with Aristotle:
All the laws exist as the manifestation of distinctions, and even though distinctions result in contradictions (as one thing must stand apart from another thing to gain identity), these distinctions stand nonetheless as they form our reality regardless of if they make sense or not. They are what they are and to negate them requires one to first observe them and this act of observation of a thing, regardless of its level of truth, necessitates existence through observation alone.