RE: Dialetheism
November 17, 2016 at 9:46 pm
(This post was last modified: November 17, 2016 at 9:46 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
It's very amusing. Redefining things so that something that means the very opposite of something can mean it itself, lol.
The philosophers who recognize that something is what it is regardless of the label are of course, sound. It's not to say that dialetheism is wrong, per se. It's to say that it's silly because it's really just a relabelling of the same truth. The fact that things can be re-conceptualized in such a way so it becomes a tautology to say that something is true and false at the same time doesn't change the fact that something is something and "if something is true and false at the same time then something is true and false at the same time" is merely a relabelling of "If A then A" or A=A.
The philosophers who recognize that something is what it is regardless of the label are of course, sound. It's not to say that dialetheism is wrong, per se. It's to say that it's silly because it's really just a relabelling of the same truth. The fact that things can be re-conceptualized in such a way so it becomes a tautology to say that something is true and false at the same time doesn't change the fact that something is something and "if something is true and false at the same time then something is true and false at the same time" is merely a relabelling of "If A then A" or A=A.
