[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

The law of contradiction (was neutral criteria)



<snip: re Clark's argument for the law of contradiction>

At 05:57 PM 7/27/99 -0700, Paul Martin wrote:

>Hmmm. So after some investigation along the west shore of Lake Washington
>I deny that nobody is rich. You then produce a nicely-crafted argument
>produced by a collection of IBM staffers to the effect that if that were
>true there would be no class distinctions; and just look at those bums
>over at Be, Inc. -- they can hardly make ends meet even after their IPO!
>But the parking lot at the new Amazon.com HQ? Boxters as far as the eye
>can see.
>
>After scratching my head, I say, look. You're right. Gassee's doing okay
>after that gig at Apple. But the rest of those Be guys are going straight
>to the poorhouse. But my denying that nobody is rich doesn't commit me to
>the claim that everyone is rich; I'm committed to nothing more than there
>being at least one rich folk -- and, golly, have a gander at that Gates
>fella over there. We learned this much on mother's knee as she read us
>stories from Aristotle.

Paul, as with Sean, I'll give you an opportunity to
retract the above line of -- uh -- reasoning. :-)

(Hint: the law of contradiction isn't just any old
proposition that you can stick into the square of
opposition.)

>> BTW, I could care less what a "dialetheist" is committed to; [...]
>
>>From which it follows that you could care less about relavently engaging
>the dialetheist in the present dialectical context. That's fine. You are
>hereby excused. But in case there a lot more to effective argument in
>context than knowing a little logic.

Well, given that I don't think anyone can even be a so-called
"dialetheist" (either formally or materially), I'm under no
obligations to regard a mere claimant to the title as being
worthy of serious or extended logical treatment.

>Anyway, I do think this context has some bearing on the presupper since
>the LOC typically plays a central role in the apologetical scheme. What to
>do when it can't be relied on?

Well, for one who rejects rationality, the only response is
preaching.  Only God can resurrect a physically dead man, a
spiritually dead man, and an epistemically dead man.

Cordially,

Vern


---
You are currently subscribed to vantil-list as: jamesanderson@xc.org