Dialetheism/Antinomy/Paradox -What are the differences ?
Offline First of all, how do you pronounce dialetheism /antinomy ? hehe.
Late last night, I happened to browse a particular forum that I check once every blue moon.
Someone was arguing that contradictions could be true and hereby proving the existence of a god. (Rolling eyes)
The poster kept using the terms, dialetheism, antinomy and paradox interchangeably, as though they were all the same exact thing and the poster stated these things were "impossible" to refute.
(Impossible to refute ? I detect bullshit)
However, I remember another RRS poster, Blake, mentioning total rejection of Dialetheism.
Now, I looked these terms up (it was getting late and I did not feel like doing all of the extensive reading that google gave me) and while they all seem to involve contradictions, there seemed to be a difference and not terms that are synonyms.
Rather than waste time trying to sift through all of the essays and the encyclopedia definitions, I thought I would take a shortcut and just ask here.
What are the differences in these terms ? Is it logical to reject dialetheism as Blake once stated ? And just how could contradictions be used to prove a god ?
I was going to post the link to the particular forum so readers here get a better idea, but that site is down this morning.
Any input on this ? I need a little edu-ma-cating.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
- Login to post comments
A paradox is typically something designed to appear both true and false, and normally used to highlight a flaw in whatever thinking leads to the idea that it's both true and false.
As far as I can tell, an antinomy is just a paradox used for a different purpose. While paradoxes are typically used to claim that one's thinking did not follow the rules, an antinomy is used to claim that the rules themselves do not work.
Dialetheism is the idea that some statements can be both true and false at the same time. It is sometimes proposed as a solution to some paradoxes/antinomies, most notably the class of Liar Paradoxes (such as 'this statement is false').
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
That clears things up quite a bit. There was a substantial body of work on all three of these on the internet. When I get time, I may look more of it up.
As I mentioned earlier, when Blake was posting on here quite regularly, I remember him mentioning that he was a "Positive" Atheist, or Strong Atheist, vs. a Negative or Weak Atheist.
I specifically remember him stating that one of the ways he was able to move from negative to positive had something to do with the rejection of dialetheism.
The reason that I remember this, is because of a discussion between he and I about logic and positive/negative stances.
But I can't remember what thread it was in.
Seeing this irrational theist on another forum throwing these terms around caused me to remember it.
The first time that I had heard it, I had meant to look it up and simply forgotten to.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno