Contradictory item is the only one that surely exists

[nameta9]

A contradictory item (or concept, or object ) is the only one that exists in the universe because it can deceive all logic and reasoning and as such does not depend on any reasoning to exist.

 

If contradictory item A is such that A=3 and also A=17, and A exists and A also does not exist, then A is the most sure thing to exist because it can always escape any logic regarding its existence. Its existence does not depend on any logic any rule or any constraint, not even the one of being true or false. It is hard to reason with this item because all reasoning breaks down, but this proves that it is the most sure thing possible, since nothing can contradict it, as it actually accepts and thrives on contradiction.

[nameta9]

An even stranger item would be a partially contradiciting item. Say A=13 and A=17 but A not equal to 12. This would be a contradictory item that has some exceptions. A is also a tree and the moon but not the letter "W".

[AL]

You cannot refute the laws of identity and non-contradiction without utilizing them. In doing so, you accept that they are true.

 

Also, if you accept that contradictions are true or real, you must also accept that contradictions are false or unreal. Think about it.

[nameta9]

Yes, it is really hard to get out of logic, you are right. But if we force ourselves out some way we can imagine a contradictory item that is both true and false even though this phrase and language ends up breaking down completely. But this is what distinguishes philosophy from other activites. Find the very limits of reasoning.

[AL]

Philosophy still must answer to reason. You'll find that few to no philosophers would reject the three basic laws of thought: identity (A is A), non-contradiction (A cannot be not A), and the excluded middle (either A or not A, but not both or neither). These axioms are self-evident in that any attempt to refute them relies on them being true.

 

You claim that something can be simultaneously true and false, which violates non-contradiction (A is not not A => true is not not true => true is not false). You must refute the law of non-contradiction before your claim can be valid. But the law of non-contradiction is the tool we use to refute things to begin with. You refute things by showing that they are contradictory, thus the only way to refute the law of non-contradiction is to use the law of non-contradiction against itself. But in doing so, you implicitly accept that the law is true.

[nameta9]

You cannot refute the laws of identity and non-contradiction without utilizing them. In doing so' date=' you accept that they are true.

[/quote']

Well I can always refute the laws of identity and non-contradiction without utilizing them through a metaphysical process which cannot be described in our language or logic, but can only be experienced through a metaphysical thought.

[Ophiolite]

Ah! So we must groog the endaphyte through distipulating the ardex bidenda. I hadn't thought of it quite like that before!

[AL]

Well I can always refute the laws of identity and non-contradiction without utilizing them through a metaphysical process which cannot be described in our language or logic, but can only be experienced through a metaphysical thought.

Even your attempt at a metaphysical loophole refutation implicitly accepts the law of identity.

What are "experience," "metaphysics," "thoughts," and "processes?" Without the law of identity, you can't be certain that experience is experience, metaphysics is metaphysics, thoughts are thoughts and processes are processes. None of these things have identity, thus they are nothing at all.

[nameta9]

Correct. And in fact this is where metaphysics is different from science, thoughts become more abstract, incoherent and it becomes more of an experience. I agree, all reasoning breaks down, but then you can force any solution, "metaphysical assignment". Of course what I just said is not true (or is it ?) ..................

[Sayonara]

Well I can always refute the laws of identity and non-contradiction without utilizing them through a metaphysical process which cannot be described in our language or logic, but can only be experienced through a metaphysical thought.

That will only apply to you, not to reality.

 

As soon as you try to communicate it you will be invoking identity.

[nameta9]

In fact I think true metaphysics doesn't have any "social" value as the most interesting experiences become completely subjective. It is not really a science and you cannot communicate the results anymore. Some philosophers in the past have reached this conclusion. It is pure invention at its maximum ...