Graham Priest - 5. What is dialetheism?

LOGIC: A SHORT INTRODUCTION - Lecture 5
Graham Priest, CUNY Graduate Center (NY), University of Melbourne

[ZZwoolyZZ]

Contradictions are the way forward. Loop of thinking, love it

[dariomiric]

Fantastic lecture! Dialethism as a solution to the liar's paradox and Mahayana's claims about the ultimate reality.

[benaberry]

loving this...can DD present a rational argument for how the law of non contradiction is true in all situations.

[kalialyman]

Thank you, this was an extremely helpful video to my essay on duality

[chrisg]

How would Aristotle (or maybe medieval exponents of Aristotelian logic, I'm not sure) have dealt with the first example?

If a woman turned up at the polling booth claiming to be a property holder this is the argument she might have presented:

All property holders may vote
Some property holders are women
Therefore some women may vote.


The official might have countered with

All property holders may vote
No woman may vote
Therefore no woman may be a property holder

[brijkishor]

Please give me a example of dialetheism

[ganrimmonim]

How about the wave-partical duality of light. Where ligjt is both these, multilateralexculsive things simulationsly until you test it.

[MarcBoixVilallonga]

¿How would dialetheism interact with Gödel's Theorems?

[jemandoondame]

Is there any writing on his views on the philosophy of law, basically where he argues the same things?

[chrisctlr]

I'd like to see a woman that can vote and not vote at the same time and in the same sense... maybe someone can explain to me what that would look like.

[ericleslima]

1:40 "you would have everything, which is slightly too much" :p

[Dave]

If you reject the principle of non-contradiction you are actually presupossing it, insofar as you say that something specific (the principle of non-contradiction) is false and something other specific (for example dialetheism) is true. This is a fallacy insofar as you presuppose something which you deny (by this very act). So by trying to reject the principle of non-contradiction you have given the best (and maybe only) proof of it. It also follows that there is not necessarily an 'orthodoxy' about the principle of non-contradiction in western philosophy, because there is actually an argument for it (also found in the classical texts of western philosophy).

[norseross]

I think this might apply to Gödels theorem

[thebookofthesun]

Dialethia is founded on belief, 'IF you believe this then...' but Aristotle was right, you cannot have a true contradiction. The closest thing to it is a clumsy, ill-thought out argument.

[ThejaTseikha]

I think any normal human mind can create a dialethia and put it out in reality in the form of laws or books or in practical living, but the objective Reality outside of us is never contradictory and that is what the law of non contradiction describes about- not the subjective irrational products of the human mind but the objective rationality of the real world.

[italogiardina]

World tourist example.
The role of political discourse through forms of ideology may hold that, for example, a libertarian is not an anarchist given the core value of governance, but is a qualified anarchist given a periphery value, where the freedom to travel abroad entails to tour through an authoritarian state. The periphery value of freedom by cultural association manifests a sense of unbelief in the core value of governance. Confusion ensues in the form of travel narrative. Notion of citizen, national identity, international travel as a form of phenomenological (mode of travel) political (mode of intersubjective interaction) dialetheism (modes of ideological states). Speed of first mode correlates with rapidity of third mode that then impacts on the second mode, that impacts on grass roots relations with 'other'...

[derpnerpwerp]

That bit about his whole book being meaningless reminds me of a thought I occasionally have. I am not a mathematician or a physist by any means.. but I sometimes think about quantum mechanics. I think about how physicists have derived formulas describing the probability of a particle being in a particular state. Without knowing exactly what these formulas are one has to assume that they are based on observation. If you then assume the many worlds interpretation is true one can imagine a world in which particles always behave in a very strange way. In fact one can imagine that the set of all worlds contains particles which, taken as a whole have a state of uniform randomness meaning that an observer in one of these worlds cannot derive any meaning about the nature of the universe in which he exists because that universe is inherently random and he is unable to observe its true randomness. In the next instant the whole world could dissolve into complete chaos with a likelihood of this happening approaching 1. However if this is the case then the whole argument, in fact any argument is built on meaningless science.

Perhaps a better and more simple example of this is imagining that you are a Boltzmann brain. You believe you are likely to be a Boltzmann brain because the universe will be in a state of near 0 entropy for most of its existence, however if you are a Boltzmann brain then quantum mechanics, thermodynamics--all of physics in fact may only exist in your mind in the split second that you exist. Meaning it's kind of a fuzzy parodox. "Fuzzy" because it is based on probability.

I think a lot about reality being derived out of purely uniform randomness.. I hate doing it because it gives me a lot of anxiety but at the same time it's a tempting thing to ruminate about. It seems more.. likely to me that either nothing would exist or *every* possible thing would exist then for just one random universe to exist.. but that's just a feeling and leads to a lot of self parodoxes.. this also leads me to stuff like the sleeping beauty probability problem which I have heard relates to the Principle of Indifference which I haven't read to much about yet.