Dialetheism

[Excited Penguin]

A fun sort of -theism. Are you an adialetheist or do you believe a statement can be both true and false at the same time ? How do you reconcile contradictions in that way, if you do ? What does this say about the nature of negation? Is negation absolute or relative - id est, is it more of a descriptive or defining quality? If it is descriptive, does that mean falsehood is a subset of truth and that truth is an ubiquitous qualia? 

Here are some examples of true contradictions that dialetheists accept [sic](Wikipedia -  ):

The only certain knowledge we have outside of our immediate experience is that there is no certain knowledge outside of our immediate experience.

"All statements are true" is a false statement.

"There are no absolutes" is an absolute.

[The Grand Nudger]

It may be the -only- fun sort of theism.  Until we bring back sex cults and whatnot.

[Jackalope]

[x] Fuck all polls

[Excited Penguin]

[x] Fuck all polls

Why, do you find them attractive? If so, would you say that makes you a proponent of dialetheism? 

Let us know by voting in the poll! Thanks!

[Edwardo Piet]

"All statements are true" is a false statement.

That makes no sense.

"There are no absolutes" is an absolute.

That makes no sense.

See, this is why it's full of shit.

[Edwardo Piet]

The only certain knowledge we have outside of our immediate experience is that there is no certain knowledge outside of our immediate experience.

That makes no sense either.

[The Grand Nudger]

Has it ever occurred to you that you think such things for non-rational reasons?  Yes, related to reason, but non-rational in and of themselves? A priori rather than a posteriori, as Kant would put it?

[Edwardo Piet]

We all think everything for non-rational reasons, ultimately. But some things are nevertheless rational things to think and some things are indeed irrational things to think. To think something is what it is is rational. To think something is what it is not is irrational. Statements such as ""There are no absolutes" is an absolute truth" is as irrational as a statement can get, it's a flat-out contradiction. If you think "A = not A" can possibly be true then you're simply wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

We all think everything for non-rational reasons, ultimately. But some things are nevertheless rational things to think and some things are indeed irrational things to think.

Indeed.

To think something is what it is is rational. To think something is what it is not is irrational.

Perhaps, but is it inaccurate?  

Statements such as ""There are no absolutes" is an absolute truth" is as irrational as a statement can get, it's a flat-out contradiction.

Right, thats the point that dialetheism makes.  Are you agreeing...or disagreeing...and think about that for a moment...since you may be invoking a dialetheistic statement either way.

If you think "A= not A" can possibly be true then you're simply wrong.

Why, because those are the rules?  Are they the rules? If dialetheistic statements exist they may not be, and so invoking them is begging the question...which is against the rules, but nevertheless you think it's true.........
(as do I, btw. Intuitively and by way of a priori statements I also consider such statements to be some subtle sort of -something- illogicval.....but I acknowledge the difficulty in identifying exactly what that is while remaining logical about it)

[Edwardo Piet]

To think something is what it is is rational. To think something is what it is not is irrational.

Perhaps, but is it inaccurate?  

Yes because that's what I mean by "irrational". Hence why you're equivocating if you disagree. I already start with the premise of A=A which means anyone who disagrees is merely equivocating. You can redefine and relabel it so "A= not A" but that's just a relabelling of "A=A". Dialetheism is just a redefining and a relabelling of things so that things can be both true and false... it doesn't change the fact that all it can do is relabel and redefine things. "A=A" represents everything being itself. The fact dialetheism defines itself in such a way so that a statement seen as true from one perspective and false from another is labelled as something being "both true and false" doesn't change the fact that it's still a case of something only being true and false from different perspectives at different times and everything still cannot be both true and false from all perspectives at all times. A=A is still not invalidated. It cannot be.

This all further demonstrates that you're still making the error whereby you're talking about different conceptualizations of the logical absolutes rather than the logical absolutes themselves. The truth of what "A=A" represents, the law of identity, applies to everything, including different conceputalizations of it. You could say to me "If something is true and false at the same time then something is true and false at the same time." But again  notice how it's just another expression of if A then A or A=A. It's just a relabelling and a definition. It doesn't actually make things completely true and false at the same time in the normal sense. Dialetheism is an alternative definition and conceptualiztion. It doesn't change any logical absolutes themselves.

You'll make progress when you realize that "A=A" represents the absolute fact that something is what it is, regardless of what silly language games are played or if someone wishes to redefine things so they can be both true and false in a different sense, from a different perspective (equivocation).

Right, thats the point that dialetheism makes.  Are you agreeing...or disagreeing...and think about that for a moment...since you may be invoking a dialetheistic statement either way.

It doesn't matter. It's still either/or rather than both. It's still only viewed differently from a different perspective. To think it's both from multiple perspectives is simply mistaken and an act of equivocation. That's what equivocation is.

If you think "A= not A" can possibly be true then you're simply wrong.

Why, because those are the rules?  Are they the rules?

No, it's because that is the absolute law and you're equivocating if you disagree. All you can do is relabel "something" to mean "not something" or "A" to mean "Not A" it's still the case that something is what it is and A=A even if you call something "not something" or A "not A". It doesn't matter what you call it or how you mess about with language. It doesn't matter what the rules are. This is a logical law that is absolute. You can label it however you want it will still be whatever it will be. Until you understand the use/mention distinction and that the labelling of "A=A" does not =/= the absolute truth of A=A no matter how much you mess about with language, you'll remain confused.

 If dialetheistic statements exist they may not be, and so invoking them is begging the question...which is against the rules, but nevertheless you think it's true.........

No. I know all statements are either true or false, A=A and not A = not A.

That is the premise and the only possible way to express disagreement with it is by relabelling it and equivocating. And you won't actually be disagreeing. Expressing disagreement =/= disagreement. Dialetheism just labels and conceptualizes the same truth differently. How many times have I explained already that conceptualization is irrelevant to the logical absolutes?

(as do I, btw.  Intuitively and by way of a priori statements I also consider such statements to be some subtle sort of -something- illogicval.....but I acknowledge the difficulty in identifying exactly what that is while remaining logical about it)

At least your intuition already knows I'm right even though you don't grasp it rationally yet.