Is it the case that proposition "x" must either be "p" or "-P"?


Do you believe this for only SOME propositions?  If so, how can this assertion be a basic law of logic?


Do you believe this for ALL propositions?  If so, wouldn't just one example of a proposition that is both true and false prove the case is only true for SOME propositions?  Thus, if the example is shown, how can the assertion be a basic law of logic?


I'm hoping for your opinion and some serious, light-hearted discussion on the matter.

Views: 1007

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Jason, do you find it easy to put a proposition like "This statement is false." into a 'maybe' category? That is interesting because the 'excluded middle' expressly denies such a category by its own rule. Are you now agreeing with me there exists at least one more categorical conclusion 'maybe' for propositions beyond just (T or F)? If so, it would seem, my original questions on this thread hold. If not, wouldn't the statement "This statement is false." have to be either be (T) or (F) - no middle ground. And isn't my insistence in this paragraph of forcing your response into either (T) or (F) the same Black and White Fallacy that pervades many intellectual pursuits?

For me, Postmodernism is not something to despise - to throw to the wayside as if it were an incorrect path to explore leaving us with only a search for some 'originalist' viewpoint from the past. Rather, I prefer to incorporate the useful, work through it and move on to a new enlightenment. What you continuously call "silly" simply shows your hatred of Postmodernism.

But on to your question of treating all language with respect. I only have an analogy at the moment to help identify from where I am coming. [If I have a patient complaining of hearing voices in his head. And these voices are telling him to do very bad things. Would I do better treating him by insisting over and over that the voices are not real?] If by mine own acknowledgement to the patient that I understand the voices are real and establish trust (if this is similar to treating all language with respect); then yes, I must think it is the better methodology.

I put "this statement is false" into the "broken" category. It's meaningless, because it is self-contradictory. It is essentially a linguistic illusion, a novelty to be discarded.


Postmodernism is despicable because it has led so many people down the rabbit hole of thinking that all ideas whatsoever are equally valid, equally true. This is patent nonsense. Postmodernism negates itself. Like "this statement is false" it is completely meaningless, utterly devoid of useful content. Its premises are broken, therefore all the fruit from the tree is rotten. Nothing good can be built upon faulty axioms.


As for the person who hears voices, you would do at least as well treating him by pointing out that the voices are only in his head. There's no reason this can't be done with respect, and certainly there's no reason to deny that the person is actually hearing voices, but it is pointless and dangerous to grant any deference to the possibility that the voices are objectively real or meaningful. Indulging somebody's delusion does them no good. Ingratiating oneself by indulging somebody's delusions is simply condescending. It is certainly dishonest.

Jason,  you're talking like you believe in virgin birth.

Postmodernism didn't suddenly appear; it's a response to the literary modernism of  the early 1900s. That modernism was a response to Victorianism, which was a response to Xianity's decreasing influence in the literature of the early-to-middle 1800s.

I will reverse direction. In the 1840s Xian morality as described in literature began to lose its influence.

Victorian literature, which told of entire lives in which moral people always won and immoral people always lost, replaced it.

People bored by Victorianism's moralizing, started telling of parts of lives in which moral people could lose and immoral people could win. They became the modernists. They were intellectual snobs; they wrote off people who were less intellectual.

The people the modernists wrote off rebelled, ergo postmodernism, which says "My story is as valid as yours, smartypants."

Get on the Internet, do some searching and you can confirm the above sh--.


Does the history matter, if the axiom they adopted is a load of horseshit? This is like trotting out the history of Christianity as a justification for it. Sorry, but nonsense is nonsense, no matter where it came from. Postmodernism is corrosive to people's ability to think critically. It provides legitimacy to crackpots like Deepak Chopra and harmful quackery like homeopathy (or do you think their stories are just as valid as anybody else's?). Postmodernism is firmly anti-reality, and our species can't afford that.

Jason, you're showing us a face of ideology, belief without evidence.

You are concealing, or perhaps don't know, your reason(s).


Tom, you haven't answered my question. What difference does the history make if the axiom is obvious nonsense on its face?


Regardless, if postmodernism is correct, then linguistic meaning itself is impossible, along with reality.

@Tom Sarbeck  'Check out "This statement is false."'

Isn't that just a kind of word salad?  Words are objects that you can string together however you like; that a sentence is grammatically correct doesn't mean that it must have actual meaning attached to it, any more than a completely random string of words.

Of course it's word salad.

I posted it because a few guys were getting verbose about logic, which is but an endeavor to find certainty in an uncertain world.

You are the first to call it what it is. Congratulations.


Heisenberg brought uncertainty to physics. Godel brought undecidability to mathematics. Derrida brought deconstruction to literature. Who will do it for logic?

LOL.  I love humor.  But is this intended to be sarcastic?

This reminds me of that day when I decided to read Michiavelli's The Prince as if he had wrote it with a sardonic tongue.  It changed my entire perspective on the novel.  And I continue to laugh to this day.  Enjoy.

I omitted Lobachevsky and Rieman, who brought distress to Euclidean geometers.

Not sarcastic; intended to point out that anthropocentric vanity explains many beliefs that were once firmly held.

Yeah, humility sucks, but I have faith that someone will someday do it for logic.


Seriously, Derrida? All he ever did was convince people that doubletalk contained actual meaning.


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service