Continuing my series on paradoxes ...
In classical logic one learns to avoid absolutes as absolutes often lead to paradoxes. This brings up the question: Do all absolutes lead to paradoxes?
Well lets examine the rule: "There is an exception to every rule."
This statement is an absolute. If it were true; then it would be a rule without an exception. The rule itself proves the rule is false.
The same is true with the statement that "All absolutes lead to contradictions."
Were the above statement true it would be an absolute without a contradiction, proving itself false.
The most common way to turn an absolute into a paradox is to apply the statement to itself. This is called the reflexive paradox.
People have known these paradoxes since antiquity.
Notably: There was a group of professional provocateurs in ancient Athens called sophists. From what I've read of ancient arguments, it appears that a common trick of the sophist was to present a commonsense argument as an absolute and finding exceptions.
Thinkers in the Aristotelian tradition understood that absolutes often lead to paradoxes and contradiction. They took great pains to avoid absolutes and paradoxes.
Classical liberal thinkers, such as the US Founders, understood paradoxes and took steps to avoid them.
Thinkers in the modern tradition (Kant, Hegel, Marx, Russell, etc.) fell in love with paradoxes.
A common tool of modern thinkers is to project a paradox onto one's opponent. The speaker then uses the contrived paradox to silence dissent.
A big difference between the Modern Liberal and the Classical Liberal is that the modern liberal pushes absolutes that force societies into chaos.
For example. The classical liberal supports the ideas of freedom of movement. The modern liberal takes that ideal and tries to turn it into an absolute by demanding open borders. A liberal society that opens its borders to illiberal elements creates for itself an existential crisis. The existential crisis, of course, leads to unnecessary conflict.
I should point out that Modern Conservatism has adopted the exact same approach as the modern liberal. Conservatives tend to argue by projecting absolutes onto strawmen. Conservatives then point out the absurdities of the man of straw that they just created.
Because modern thinkers are prone to use manufactured paradoxes in their arguments. It is beneficial to know how easy it is to manufacture a paradox.
My head hurts. It is interesting the way language and thought can produce such gymnastics. Great write up.
Sorry about the headache. I am trying to find a way to show that many of the really contentious issues of our day were actually contrived. A skilled talker can employ simple tricks to make any issue divisive.
Congratulations @yintercept! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your board and compare to others on the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @hivebuzz: