Is the self all that can be known to exist?

[Edwardo Piet]

Some paradox may be illusions, but again, it's not really conceivable that all paradox is illusion.  Some may also be about the structure of our language. I'm glad to see that you aren't chanting "equivocation" like a mantra anymore.

I never started saying that it wasn't an equivocation. It is an equivocation. Either a statement is true or it is false. If you look at it from one perspective it's true, if you look at it at another it's false. To say it's both true and false at the same time is to equivocate in the same way as saying that a feather is necessarily both not heavy and bright because "light" means both.

All paradoxes that appear to violate the law of identity are illusions.

If the statement is true then the statement = A

If the statement is false then the statement = not A

It's either A or not A. You can't pretend it's both when you're only ever perceiving it one way or the other. Each perspective is a different statement and if you say it's not you're equivocating.

"All Cretans are liars."

"He's a Cretan so he must be lying... but that means he was telling the truth."

The statement is true.

"All Cretans are liars."

"He's telling the truth because he's a lying Cretan.... but he's a Cretan so he can't be telling the truth about his lying he must be lying about it."

The statement is false.

From one perspective and interpretation it's true, from another it's false. To say it's both true and false is to equivocate through a failure to recognize that different perspectives are being taken and different interpretations are being interpreted.

In any case, bringing it back round to the self.  There are, sometimes, issues with self referential truth statements.

I'm not a Solipsist because whatever is, is. With or without my existence that is true.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can respond any way you like, but it won't be a valid response to dialetheism in a vacuum.   Look, I understand that the notion of consistency is important to you.  But you cant respond to an inconsistency by stating that no inconsistency can exist because inconsistency can't exist.  Invoking the principle of noncontradiction in this manner is question begging -even if it's accurate.

It;s not about being right all the time ham, it's about getting it right for the right reasons.  

Now, back to the self, and how dialetheism might be at play in any self referential statement -about- the self.  It may be true, that no self exists. Difficult to swallow, since, presumably, it's the self answering the question "do I exist" or "does self exist". How could the self simultaneously not exist, and ask..let alone answer...the question?

(illusions, Ham, all illusions....I don;t think you're going to get very far by insisting that, as I mentioned before...now we have to worry that -any- logical statement in natural language is an illusion, not just the ones whose implications we don;t like. Perhaps the cogito is the illusion, for example. Maybe you should close that can of worms, eh?)

[Tangra]

You can respond any way you like, but it won't be a valid response to dialetheism in a vacuum.   Look, I understand that the notion of consistency is important to you.  But you cant respond to an inconsistency by stating that no inconsistency can exist because inconsistency can't exist.  Invoking the principle of noncontradiction in this manner is question begging -even if it's accurate.

It;s not about being right all the time ham, it's about getting it right for the right reasons.  

Now, back to the self, and how dialetheism might be at play in any self referential statement -about- the self.  It may be true, that no self exists. Difficult to swallow, since, presumably, it's the self answer the question "do I exist". How could the self simultaneously not exist, and ask..let alone answer...the question?

In my humble opinion this sort of conversation merits a long meditation to have an effect on any of us - if there is anything in fact to defeat. If there isn't, we surely won't have lost when we conquer.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Edwardo Piet]

You can respond any way you like, but it won't be a valid response to dialetheism.   Look, I understand that the notion of consistency is important to you.  But you cant respond to an inconsistency by stating that no inconsistency can exist because inconsistency can't exist.  Invoking the principle of noncontradiction in this manner is question begging -even if it's accurate.

When noncontradiction is the only possible premise it's not question begging.

I can respond any way I like but whether I respond or not A still =A.

I don't need a valid response to dialetheism besides "Dialetheism is based on an unsound premise and an equivocation between two different ways of looking at the same sentence."

A=A independently of conceptual nonsense like dialetheism. It's conceptual nonsense regardless of if I respond at all. It would be conceptual nonsense if I had never been born. "A can both be A and not A in the same way and in the same respects" is utter nonsense. The fact that it truly is utter nonsense doesn't make it not truly utter nonsense. Being truly nonsense =/= being true. That's called equvocating. Giving an example of a sentence being both true and false from different perspectives is exactly an example of equivocation. It all just further demonstrates A=A like everything else does and must.

It;s not about being right all the time ham, it's about getting it right for the right reasons.

That's still about being right.

Now, back to the self, and how dialetheism might be at play in any self referential statement -about- the self.  It may be true, that no self exists.  Flies in the face of the cogito, but we have no -reason- to accept the cogito.  We either do or we don't.

You have to start by defining "self" just like you have to start by defining what you mean by "this statement is not true". By itself "true" is meaningless. You may as well have said "this statement is not". And even if we granted that "this statement is not true" can have a meaning, it's still a case that it's only true or false from different perspectives at different times and not from the same perspective at the same time. This all just further demonstrates equivocation.

[Aegon]

Certain fields of philosophy are more practical to study. For example, political philosophy, as I see it, is a way to try and achieve the best possible society under certain sets of circumstances. Aristotle's Politics deals with this. Political philosophy has the ability to be applied in a practical setting. Even lines of thought like Socrates' discussion on what defines justice is still more practical, because if you are searching for ways to create a just society or to act as justly as possible, you will need to decide what justice is. Things can change depending on the conclusion. This isn't the case with stuff like solipsism. Even if it were true, what can I do in response? How could it impact the way I do things or the way a society does something?

Practicality implies goals. What are your goals ? Are you seeking impact? Which sort? Are you seeking societal change ? Of what kind? Why?

I think the goal of philosophy is to reach a truth using logic. But I personally only find philosophy useful if these truths have an impact on the way I do things or the way society does things. Political philosophy can have (and has had) this sort of impact. Solipsism cannot.

Sorry, I usually stay away from this subforum because I'm no fun when it comes to this stuff. If I don't see practicality in something I don't see the point in it at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

When noncontradiction is the only possible premise it's not question begging.

Now you're begging -another- question.  See how this turns into a death spiral?

I can respond any way I like but whether I respond or not A still =A.

Since the question of dialetheism is whether or not a statament can be simultaneously true and false, responding that it can't be because it must be either true or false is mind numbingly question begging.  

I don't need a valid response to dialetheism besides "Dialetheism is based on an unsound premise and an equivocation between two different ways of looking at the same sentence."

Again, you can respond any way you like, but you're not going top be able to make that statement stick to every dialetheism even if you can make it stick to one.  

That's still about being right.

If you can't see the, admittedly, subtle distinction, that might explain why you respond the way you do.  We can be right for the wrong reasons...we do it all the time.

You have to start by defining "self" just like you have to start by defining what you mean by "this statement is not true". By itself "true" is meaningless. You may as well have said "this statement is not". And even if we granted that "this statement is not true" can have a meaning, it's still a case that it's only true or false from different perspectives at different times and not from the same perspective at the same time. This all just further demonstrates equivocation.

I doubt this discussion is going to be very productive Ham.  You're doing it again, lol. I'll let you have it with yourself, and I'll talk with these other guys.

[Tangra]

I cannot posit on reality that there exist no contradictions

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Edwardo Piet]

I think the goal of philosophy is to reach a truth using logic.

That's a beautiful definition.

But I personally only find philosophy useful if these truths have an impact on the way I do things or the way society does things.

Same here.

Political philosophy can have (and has had) this sort of impact. Solipsism cannot.

I agree that political philosophy has had that sort of impact. The concept of solipsism doesn't have an impact on society but it does have an impact on individuals. I can testify to that because it has been impactful to me. Impactful in that through analysing it in combination with my understanding of logic I deem it to be false. "Whatever is, is" is true with or without me. I can know that as well as my own existence.

Sorry, I usually stay away from this subforum because I'm no fun when it comes to this stuff.

Well I'm enjoying and agree with almost everything you've said in this post I am responding to.

If I don't see practicality in something I don't see the point in it at all.

If we take "no point" to mean "useless" rather than "without a logical point" then your perspective is true by definition.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nor can I.  I can certainly assess specific contradictions and suggest that they may be subtle this or thats, but without complete knowledge I can;t possibly make the claim that no contradictions exist or that my answer to any given contradiction - or indeed my set of answers to sets of contradictions, is an answer to -every- contradiction that may exist.  

The self might be just such a thing.  I have no way of arguing the self in except by self referential statements regarding the self. May as well say the self exists because the self exists. OTOH< I don;t think that it does, which presents a potential paradox that's just as difficult to account for.

[Edwardo Piet]

I cannot posit on reality that there exist no contradictions

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

A contradictory statement refers to no thing. There indeed exists no real contradictions, unless you wish to equivocate. Like with some joke such as "I don't agree". But hence there being no real contradictions.