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.
Jason, I'm replying here because your post above that says I haven't answered your question has no Reply button.
I very seldom hear questions loaded as heavily as you loaded that one. It contains as much dogmatism as I regularly hear from fundy xians. If you are now in the process of ridding yourself of fundy xianity, I hope you succeed.
The software that A|N uses only allows (I think) five levels of reply indentation. If you want to reply after that, you can scroll up to the nearest post that still has a reply button, and then your reply will sort to the bottom of the most-indented post. Gets a little confusing when that wraps to a new page, though.
I shed my Christianity a long time ago, thanks. The fact remains that Postmodernism is no more than a way of confusing people with meaningless verbiage. It's all very well to complain about colonialism, entrenched power structures, various isms, false dichotomies and other pigeonholing, etc, but to throw meaning itself under the bus in order to make these complaints is ridiculous. Valid complaints should not be weakened by devaluing meaning itself.
We actually do know things. Some points of view are, in short point of fact, considerably more valid than others, because they actually comport with the vast bulk of corroborating evidence. The Enlightenment is what enabled us to even be having this conversation, and to reject it is madness. Feel free to point out where I'm mischaracterizing Postmodernism, but from everything I've read on the subject, it's either seriously confused thinking or an outright fraud. Derrida was a Pied Piper, and his followers are drowning in gibberish.
Is it dogmatism to insist that an objective reality exists, and to argue otherwise is a pointless self-contradiction? I don't think so. I think it's the very basis of intelligible discourse. The really strange thing is that anybody who thinks any old point of view is just as valid as any other would even bother hanging out on an atheist forum. After all, if Postmodernism is correct, it means that theism is actually just as valid a way of understanding the world as any other. Why even bother discriminating amongst viewpoints? Why even bother talking or thinking at all? Postmodernism just makes a big meaningless mush of everything.
"I shed my Christianity a long time ago...."
People can shed xianity intellectually but not emotionally. The name-calling you've done in your posts revealed a lot of pent-up emotion. When reason has led you to a conclusion, you can state it without name-calling.
You are seeing postmodernism in a power-free context. A person who has the power in a relationship with you (i.e., an employer) can state a point of view you think is nonsense. If you believe he might fire you, you might grant his point of view a validity it does not otherwise merit. If you believe you can find other employment, you might point out his nonsense.
Is it dogmatism to insist that an objective reality exists? In a quantum world, yes.
For theists, theism has validity. Do theists exist?
You've been stating your point of view with an absolutism that xianity has long used. Have you really shed your xianity?
Tom, the fact that you refer to it insultingly as "xianity" says as much about your emotional state relative to that religion as anything I've said, and perhaps more. But since neither of us is a professional mental health care practitioner, perhaps we can leave the armchair psychobabble to others, eh?
And I'm not sure how you'd know that it's possible to state a conclusion without name-calling if you reached it by reason, considering that it's impossible to actually reach a conclusion using Postmodernist methods.
I am absolutely not seeing Postmodernism in a power-free context. Quite the reverse--I am seeing power structures and conflict in a Postmodernism-free context. You do not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater in order to see inequality and inequity. Postmodernism may use their methods to highlight such things, but they undercut their own arguments by adopting the position that all points of view are equally valid, including the ones held by the oppressors in any given situation. Who's to say that tyrants and petty dictators aren't the ones with the correct worldview? Certainly not Postmodernism.
It is not dogmatism to insist that an objective reality exists; it is the very basis of reason and discourse. And quantum anything has nothing to do with it. If you believe that it does, you belong over on DeepakChopra.com with the other woozies.
Of course theists exist, or this site wouldn't. How in the world does that have anything to do with whether theism is valid? That's a blatant non sequitur. If you really think theism has validity, I can't begin to imagine what you are doing on an atheist website.
Postmodernism, and your posts, Tom, are disturbingly reason-deficient. If you truly think there is no objective reality, then we really can't have much to discuss between us. I am a proud member of the reality-based community. It seems you reject the very concept of reality. Good luck with that.
Jason, you stirred the word "insulting" into this conversation; your saying "xianity" is insulting tells more about you than it does about me. With non-believers I use the word because it's short; with believers I use the word when I want to irritate them. My using it appears to have irritated you. If you are now breaking from xianity I understand. I broke from it 55 years ago.
"...it's impossible to actually reach a conclusion using Postmodernist methods."
1. The purpose of PM methods is to reach a standoff. My saying "Your view is your truth; my view differs" tells you that what you did won't give you the conclusion you want.
2. You predict failure; of course you wouldn't try PM methods. Not intentionally, anyway.
3. Assertions without evidence may be denied without evidence.
"It is not dogmatism to insist that an objective reality exists...."
With relativity, Einstein showed physicists a new reality. They came to terms with it, and with quantum mechanics took it further. Einstein, dogmatic in his view that an objective reality exists, was unable to go with them. They left him behind and he spent his final decades trying prove them wrong. He failed.
Theists say theism has validity; you say it has none. You used PM methods and made a standoff. However, to insist that you are right and theists are wrong sounds much like Catholicism's "Error has no rights!"
You believe there is an objective reality and I believe there is not. I see no reason to continue the combat. Be kind to y'self.
"Xian" is a legitimate term -
'According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the use of the abbreviation "xian" or "xtian" for "Christian" dates back at least as far as 1634.'
Well, I wish I had more time lately to respond more often. Sorry for any inconvenience, but the funky absence of the 'reply' buttons leaves me no choice but to post here.
Drake, your very well-thought-out model is quite admirable to say the least. There is very little for me to object to (leaving the nihilists for later) except a response to your contention of 'lack of context' with my model. That is interesting because 'over-simplified context' is what seems to be the foundation of your model. You made a comment earlier that my model is confusing because of insufficient study of the fine structure of the classical approaches. Jason has challenged that exact assertion. So, to be clear. Does your model totally break away from a condified (T or F) Classical definition of 'proposition'? I ask this because I do not see that our models are mutually exclusive.
What I'm seeing is that my model offers fundamental categories to use before one begins an investigation as well as what one would revisit throughout the process. Your model begins at the time the investigation starts (because the null set is left to those nihilists). Yours appropriately handles data obtained, then concludes interactional compatibility amongst structures. But isn't your model simply only allowing (T) conclusions throughout the process while also denying truths and falsities as part of the methodology? Wouldn't you also say it is important for investigations to recurringly 'take a step back' and reaffirm basic concepts as (T) and/or (F) throughout the process?
I don't see a need to show 'context' on a sophisticated level with my model if there are wonderful folk such as yourself whom have models which intergrate with mine. I would contend, it is the very lack of sophisticated context which garnishes my model's strength. But, I understand the fun in delving deeper into textual ideas.
So, do you have a way to show how my model does not provide a pre-investigation platform (by way of using cognitive reasoning affirming or denying truths throughout) for when your model begins an investigation. I will most undoubtedly consider it. I find it difficult to see how the least I could expect from a new logical approach could totally usurp concepts of (T) and (F). Can you tell me how people will go from the current Classical Logic to one derived strictly from the Null Set without holding onto concepts of (T) and/or (F)?
I was referring to lack of context in your writing style, not an absence of context in the philosophy. In the responses so far (that I've seen), you've been using the shorthand (T), (F), (T and F), and (-T and -F) without pausing to explain those terms in better detail. This makes it hard to follow some of your extended examples because the reader has to guess at your intent.
I would say that my model decomposes 'False' into more-nuanced structural categories. These can be roughly matched against a modified Kantian division of knowledge:
With the main distinction being that the A Posteriori categories allow finite statements from incomplete data, while the A Priori categories are universal statements which would be equivalent to an infinite dataset (hence the incompatibility between these forms).
So this model contextualizes (F) according to its applicable class of structures. It functions in much the same fashion within each category, but it disallows any comparison of (F) values or methods across categories ("Do you have proof that 1 + 1 = 2?" demonstrates a cross-categorical violation).
Given the above, the logical values are broken into (Ø|T) as "unstructured" or "existent structure" for each category and (Ø|[(F1->F2)|F2|(F3->F4)|F4]) for "unrefuted" or one of the four refutations ('->' is implies). Unlike the classic values, (T) becomes a 'default' value for any physical or mental structure, while (F#) is a separate, loosely-related logical value. For example, it is possible to have (T, F4) as an existing structure demonstrating disjuncture (A photon exhibiting quantum superposition as it 'travels' in 7 different directions simultaneously, or a belief system having a non-sequitur conclusion).
Note that in both cases, the structure possesses (T) analytic a posteriori identity so long as it doesn't interact with other structures. In effect, these are actually examples of (T: T, T, Ø, Ø) with (F4), where the synthetic a posteriori (F) value is pre-empted by the lack of existence within that category. Each path the photon followed could have be taken, but the first collision will cause (T: T, T, T, T) and the superposition will collapse as the disjuncture is eliminated by the reduction of the 'phantom' photons.
So, functionally these concepts of (T) and (F) have distinctly different consequences from the classical values, but I'm not sure whether you'd consider them compatible or totally unrelated to each other. The central difference is that (F) no longer implies (-T), while (T) still implies (-F). It may seem like a minor distinction, but the above examples point out how it can lead to some very distinct phenomena (assuming my descriptions were accurate).