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.
"It [deconstruction] was effectively named and popularized by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida...." So says The New Oxford American Dictionary.
A postmodern might answer you with, "That's your narrative."
you've seen this no doubt....http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
That is hilarious !!! A postmodernism generator... rofl
I especially like how it over-emphasizes "we must choose between..."
No. I had not seen this but it is a very nice example of Absurdism through postmodernistic effects. GREAT post AnneT.
A brother a dozen years younger than I introduced me to postmodern views when I'd given him my opinion of something.
He surprised me with "That's your truth; mine differs."
I played with the pomo generator for a while. I have for years been telling people America is in a postmodern period. One writer on the subject has said another enlightenment will follow but didn't say when.
Derrida, in refusing to define the term, did use a lot of words.
Law students stole it from him, gave it the meaning "close reading" and created critical law studies. They defined deconstruction to refer to a law's explicitly granting a privilege to one group and implicitly denying a related privilege to another group. The privileged types hated having their privileges laid out for all to see.
In another context, suppose a merchant ship's first mate writes truthfully "The captain is sober today" in the daily log.
A casual reading tells of the captain's condition today.
A close reading implies the captain's drunken condition yesterday and on previous days.
To literary types, enjoy your uncertainty.
Tom, thanks for posting this. I think it helps to identify exactly at what point propositions are methodically split into a self-fulfilling (T or F) by further "close reading". This is why I am trying to defend the basic concept of recognizing contradictions on a base level - Logical rules.
I take it you very much admire certainty? Do you agree with others here that there is simply no need for a new logical system or a new defnition for 'proposition'?
Marc, I don't admire certainty.
I enjoy bringing uncertainty to those whose need for certainty leads them to do harm to others, such as the great harm that has been done, and will continue to be done, by believers in the religions humankind has created.
After I retired I took courses at a nearby two-year college and a linguistics instructor started his lectures by pointing out the wonders of languages that have grammars, etc. I heard him as having said, "Languages with grammars, etc are wonderful. Human beings alone on earth have such languages. Therefore human beings are superior to other life forms." I asked him if he had intended this and he became very angry. I decided that I would get little from his course and dropped it.
I understand, perhaps inadequately, Platonic idealism to mean that because I can state a proposition, that proposition is true. Xianity adopted Plato's reasoning and Catholicism used it to justify the Inquisition.
Propositions such as "This statement is false" make clear that even language can deceive. I borrowed the haiku form to say it: "English, our language,/Has two excellent uses:/Poetry and fraud."
Marc, re your "...when someone only has the mind to destroy...."
The privileged among us do resent the destruction. The close reading I mentioned in my previous post exploded the myth that we live in a society in which political equality is a reality.
The explosion was long delayed. In the 1787 Constitutional Convention, James Madison said the government should protect "the minority of the opulent against the majority." He was but one of the delegates who wanted privilege for a few.
In a reconstruction, both economic and political rights will probably be more evenly distributed.
Tom, I have been itching sooo bad to include the Political realm within this thread. I have denied it so as not to create any more confusion than might already exist. But since you brought it up, I take it you believe "In a reconstruction, both economic and political rights will probably be more evenly distributed." that this is necessarily a bad thing? [Wasn't sure how much sarcasm was contained in your post]
It sounds like Madison understood there are times when the privileged have so much more, which is not available to the majority, the majority will take from them by force. With all the power in resources of the opulent, why else would they need Government to protect them?
No sarcasm at all. Madison also said: "An increase of population will increase the proportion who labor under all the hardships of life and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this country, but symptoms of a leveling spirit have sufficiently appeared in certain quarters to give notice of the future danger."