Zeus' Ethics Quiz

If you argue, then you must either reject logic or accept that other people exist. But if you argue AND reject logic, then you can't argue -- as to argue means to use logic, hence this is a contradiction in terms. Thus in order to argue you MUST accept other people exist. There's no way around it:

As I've said repeatedly you cannot argue with yourself unless you are able to hold two contradictory positions and accept both of them. If you can do this then no logic is possible.

Once you begin debating you have already accepted your own existence, the existence of others, and the existence of objective reality. You either accept these or reject logic. If you reject logic then debate is impossible. If debate is possible, then you cannot reject the existence of others.

If you can debate and you debate that I do not exist, then this is a performative contradiction one way or another. Either I don't exist in which case you can't debate or use logic, or I do exist, in which case your statement is false.

Here's the symbolic logic in case you still don't get it:

 

If you argue, then you necessarily exist. The act of arguing requires someone or thing to put forward an argument. What you exist as however requires further analysis.

And if you argue then you must accept the existence of others, as per the logic previously stated.

What's hard about this? You already accepted this previously.

So let's recap.

Existence:
1. An argument is put forward.
2. Someone or thing (an arguer) must exist in order to put it forward.

Independence:
1. If you are arguing then either you are arguing with yourself or with someone else.
2. If you are arguing with yourself then logic is not possible as this would require you to hold and accept two contradictory positions at the same time.
3. If logic is not possible, then argument is not possible.
4. You cannot be arguing with yourself.
5. If you are arguing, and you cannot be arguing with yourself, then you must be arguing with someone else.

Ok now please tell me which of the above 7 statements you disagree with.

 

This is equivocation:

Deliberation / weighing alternatives is not the same as a debate or argument.

Further, this is yet another performative contradiction:

Your argument is that one can hold two contradictory positions and believe both of them fully at the same time. But by putting forward this argument you are automatically requiring that it is not true. If I could believe two contradictory positions simultaneously, then logic would communicate nothing to me, and thus putting forward a logical argument would be like sending a letter saying that the post doesn't get delivered.

When you argue a point, you are requiring that the law of non-contradiction is true, and that the receiver of your point knows and is able to comprehend that it is true.

If you want to study philosophy you are going to need to become better at detecting performative and logical contradictions. One of the reasons philosophy is in such a bad way in this day and age is that people don't recognise fundamental contradictions correctly.

Here's a list of example performative contradictions. See how many you've heard uttered by academics:

 

You are still relying on the fact that I can't hold and believe contradictory positions in order to put forward your position. You're not understanding that this is a performative contradiction. You are putting forward a contradiction, not an argument. If you believed your position you would have no reason to put forward any argument at all.

Again, it is not possible to debate with yourself, as we've already established ad nauseum. Anything that you think might be the equivalent of debating with yourself is still not debating with yourself. A simulation of a debate you might have with someone else is not the same as a debate. No more than a simulation of a car crash in your head is the same as having a car crash. These are remembered and projected events built by your rational faculty WHICH REQUIRES that you cannot hold two contradictory positions and believe both of them at once to operate.

Your argument is a peformative contradiction when you utter it, and a logical contradiction upon analysis. It is simply wrong.

Whole kettle of performative contradictions in this set of statements.

You use the floating abstraction of 'time' with no reference to what time is. If you define your terms you will immediately discover that any definition of time that allows for temporal paradox requires infinite regression (contradiction). That is to say: A paradox is a contradiction, thus no definition of time that allows for paradox can be valid.

If this is what you study then you are not studying philosophy. What you are putting forward is no more philosophy than which-doctory is medicine. I mean you can't even establish the veracity of axiomatic primaries, despite being spoon fed the correct epistemological method and reasoning to get there? This is like a "doctor" who can't diagnose a patient's cancer despite having an oncologist run through the method and analysis of diagnosis of the very same patient with him....

Further, your statement that you do not accept sensory evidence as a valid form of evidence is again nonsense and a performative contradiction. You did not learn your arguments by absorbing them from the aether. Everything you are putting forward whether it be rational or irrational, including the medium by which you are putting it forward (english language, keyboard, internet) is all learned behaviour. Learned from where? Well from your senses. If senses are not a valid source of evidence and information then you cannot do anything. You should close your eyes, block your ears and pretend the world doesn't exist, if you truly believe that your senses are invalid.

You can weigh alternatives. You can't hold contradictory statements and believe them at the same time. As I've said over and over, if you could, then your arguments would be just noise: I would just say yes to everything whilst believing the opposite, and even if I said no to everything, you would believe both the yes and no position equally and have no objection. No communication via logic would be possible. A hypothetical person who can hold contradictory positions and believe them both cannot be reasoned with. That you are reasoning (or attempting to reason) with me, contradicts your own statement.

After three or four posts you are still strung out on your own performative contradictions. Why don't you unpeg yourself from your pet conclusions, and be a real philosopher. You should not be married to your conclusions, only to internally consistent and verifiably accurate epistemological methods. That is what philosophy is.

 

Perhaps I am failing to explain it adequately to you guys.

If you say 1 + 1 = 2, then you are actually saying:

The laws of mathematics are valid, and the following statement is therefore valid: 1 + 1 = 2.

This is called an implicit premise.

Ok, so with most of the implicit premises included, you are actually saying in your quote above:

The laws of reason and logic are correct, and if I put an argument to you which disproves your position, then you should change your position to a correct position, and here is the argument I am going to put to you: You need not have a position to argue for one position or another.

I assume you can see the performative contradiction clearly? If you are arguing, even for something you don't necessarily believe, you are still putting forward (and believe) the position that one should not hold contradictory positions.


Come on guys, it's not that hard, surely?

Let me put it really simply:

YOU CAN'T USE LOGIC TO TELL SOMEONE THAT THEY CAN'T UNDERSTAND LOGIC.

YOU CAN'T USE LOGIC TO DISPROVE LOGIC.

YOU CAN'T USE LOGIC TO PROVE A CONTRADICTION.


I honestly don't get why you guys are trying to reject the simple cure to your flailing sophistry. You realise of course that true statements are infinitely preferable and infinitely more useful than false statements. You guys would rather hold your contradictions dear and try undermine reason itself than accept axiomatically true statements. It amazes me. Why would anyone do this? It's like a sort of intellectual suicide....

 

If you believed reason was subjective like this then what reason do you have to disagree with anything? On what basis are you disagreeing with me in the first place, if not an objective basis? This is just the relativist fallacy. You are essentially making the statement that no statement is true, except the one you are making. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy )

Again you fall into the same trap of performative contradiction -- the same one you two have fallen into with almost every statement you have made.

Go back and re-read. It is most certainly not possible to argue with yourself. As I've said numerous times its a contradiction in terms, a performative contradiction and leads to a set of logical contradictions.

You haven't refuted a single one of my statements.

 

You're making an argument like this:

IF (A is white and B is black) THEN B will be hotter, ELSE A will be hotter.

You are not making two contradictory arguments, you are making one true argument. You just fail to see that the thing you write on the page is your argument. You think the arguments are the subcomponents of your argument.

Even when you try to make two contradictory arguments at the same time you will fail, because you will recognise (identify) that they are in contradiction. If you can't identify this then you are not using logic, and it is not an argument.

Here is an example:
The earth is round. The earth is flat.

This is a contradictory set of statements. When you read it, you immediately convert the observed two assertions into:
It is a contradiction to say that "the earth is round" and that "the earth is flat" at the same time.

Which is a true argument. There's no way for you to physically process both of those statements and believe both of them at the same time. If there were then logic would be impossible to you. Likewise, when you weigh alternatives you are not saying:

I should go to the shops. I should go to the park.

You are saying "If I want X, I should go to the shops, if I want Y, I should go to the park. Is X more valuable to me at the moment than Y?" This a question to which there is always a definite answer. It does not lead to any contradictions. If X > Y, then you will go to the shops, if X < Y then you will go the park, if X = Y then you won't prefer one over the other so you will go to either or both or you will bring in another factor to decide.

No, I am not assuming people are perfectly rational. If you go back and read my arguments again, you will see that I am saying that IF you debate with someone, THEN you are assuming they are able to reason and that they cannot hold contradictory positions and believe both. Just the same as IF you send a letter in the post THEN you are assuming the post is delivered. Hence if you write a letter that says the post is never delivered you have committed a performative contradiction. Likewise IF you reason with someone that they are not rational, then you have committed a performative contradiction.

It's really not that hard. I am surprised.

 

Well duh. And no argument is needed to prove the existence of others either. It is axiomatically self evident.