I contradict myself, which means that I am always right

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 46
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,206
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
No, it doesn't add or subtract truth. Lying subtracts truth.
I dont see how lying "substracts" truth. If I tell one true claim, it will remain true even if I tell 10000 lies after it.

However, both lying and silence take valuble time which could be otherwise used to tell the truth.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Karl Marx spent plenty of time studying Hegel. Karl Marx's dialectical materialism is mostly based on Hegel's dialectics. Only Hegel applied dialectics in ideas and reaching truth, where Marx realized that dialectics dont apply to just ideas and words, but to human relations as well as conditions in society. This discovery was revolutionary, because while Hegel applied and observed contradictions in ideas and the eventual win of one idea over another, Karl Marx saw contradiction between worker class and capitalist class in a capitalist society, and reached conclusion that the struggle between them can only have one victor or common demise of both.
Hegel’s dialectics dealt with contradictions in ideas; even when applied to historical cases, it began as a conceptual process. Marx, on the contrary, sought to use dialectics to analyze history through material changes, as he believed that material circumstances ultimately shaped human thought.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,594
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Best.Korea
If I tell one true claim, it will remain true even if I tell 10000 lies after it.
Yeah, but the knowledge in people's heads will become more removed from reality. If people believe a false claim, it will remain false even if you tell 10000 true statements after it.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,206
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
Yeah, but the knowledge in people's heads will become more removed from reality.
Or they will remove my false claims and fill me with truth, thus more truth for me. Besides, I seek challenge to my claims. I dont seek people who will absorb everything I tell them. And people cant challenge my claims if I dont make them.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
However, both lying and silence take valuble time which could be otherwise used to tell the truth.
Telling the truth is more efficient than lying.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,594
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Or they will remove my false claims and fill me with truth
Or they will tell you falsehoods whenever you say a true statement, because they followed your advice to just say everything.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Savant
Or they will tell you falsehoods whenever you say a true statement, because they followed your advice to just say everything.
He will even repeat the lies fed to him by others.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,206
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
Or they will tell you falsehoods whenever you say a true statement, because they followed your advice to just say everything.
If I say a true statement and they say falsehood, then my truth remains true. However, my advice logically has to produce truth (one of different and opposite premises has to be true), so if they follow it, it would be impossible for them to not say any truth.
Also, debating itself is literally impossible without someone making a false claim first. With two opposite positions taken in debate, one must be false and one must be true.

Thus, in all debates, there is at least one liar involved. In fact, debating wouldnt exist if there were no liars. However, in order to know what is a lie, lie must be presented as a topic in a debate so that the opposite - truth - can be learned.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Thus, in all debates, there is at least one liar involved. In fact, debating wouldnt exist if there were no liars. However, in order to know what is a lie, lie must be presented as a topic in a debate so that the opposite - truth - can be learned.
What about the expression there are always two sides to every story?
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,206
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Shila
What about the expression there are always two sides to every story?
In debating, when there are opposite premises, only one can be true. Thus, when there are two debaters, one arguing for one premise, the other arguing for opposite, it is logically not possible for both to be true.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
What about the expression there are always two sides to every story?
In debating, when there are opposite premises, only one can be true. Thus, when there are two debaters, one arguing for one premise, the other arguing for opposite, it is logically not possible for both to be true.
Can two statements be true?

Biconditional Statement

In short the biconditional, if true, means that both statements are the same, either both true or both false, as seen in the truth table below. A biconditional statement is true in the case that both statements are true or both statements are false.

Can something be both true and false at the same time?
Logic however tells us that it cannot be both the truth and a lie at the same time. Yet it does appear to be both true and false at the same time. A more modern example is “this sentence is false”: if it is true the sentence is false, then it is false that it is true.

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,206
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Shila
Can two statements be true?
I said two opposite statements. "Biconditional Statement" isnt about two opposite statements.


A more modern example is “this sentence is false”: if it is true the sentence is false, then it is false that it is true.
That one was solved by logical axiom which says that category cannot contain more than itself. To put it simply, a statement cannot contain more than itself, but the statement above tries to do exactly that. 

It is like saying:

P = P is false.

In this logical error, P contains both itself and more than itself, which logically cannot happen.

Per logical axiom,

P = P

Thus, P cannot be more than P.

Thus, P cannot contain "P is false" in any formal logic, as "P is false" contains P and more than P, thus cannot be contained by P.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Thus, P cannot contain "P is false" in any formal logic, as "P is false" contains P and more than P, thus cannot be contained by P.
If you know a statement is false why say it and make the rest of your statements suspect.?
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@FishChaser
In order to be right you have to IDENTIFY which answer is right. If you just say everything then you aren't right even if one of those things is right because you still don't know which one is right.
They call that the weave, and its genius.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Green is both blue and yellow, and yet, it is neither blue, nor yellow.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,206
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Green is both blue and yellow, and yet, it is neither blue, nor yellow.
"A and B" is neither "A" neither "B".