Is my reasoning sound? Why (not)?
If the law of non-contradiction did not apply, it could at the same time apply too. This means that if it applies, that does not mean it does not not apply.
If you don't want to be humbled, you shouldn't come here, jkk. Always the chance of encountering a serious philosophical question or answer - like mine - among the mass of drivel even *you* can feel superior to.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
The law on non-contradiction is basically the fundamental start for most reasoning. Something cannot both be X and not X at the same time.
This law can't be proved without using the law itself. It can be argued for, but it can't be logically proved.
As far as your statement goes... Yes, if the law did not apply, then it would follow that something could be both X and not X. So it could apply at the same time. And yes, your second conclusion would be applicable by the first.
However, like I stated before, this law can't be thought about with logic because it can't be proven... so is an assumption, not a logical conclusion. Using logic on this statement ends up in perversion. Philosophers say that you can only prove this law by showing the person that they already depend on it.
- 1 decade ago
Wow! That hurt my brain. I had to read it about 50 times to understand it.
But, I do agree with your reasoning. I think that this is all a matter of your point of view.
- hurtin'Lv 51 decade ago
You are torquing us around!! There is little point in positing paradoxes of imagined value. :-pSource(s): Look up "logical fallacies"