The Law of Contradiction

[Mountaineer]

1984 redux:

"As the first essential step of his education, Winston has to learn doublethink—a way of thinking that defies the law of contradiction. In Aristotle, the law of contradiction is the basis of all reasoning, the means of making sense of the world. It is the law that says that X and Y cannot be true at the same time if they’re mutually exclusive. For instance, if A is taller than B and B is taller than C, C cannot be taller than A. The law of contradiction means things like that.

In our time, the law of contradiction would mean that a governor, say, could not simultaneously hold that the COVID pandemic renders church services too dangerous to allow, and also that massive protest marches are fine. It would preclude a man from declaring himself a woman, or a woman declaring herself a man, as if one’s sex is simply a matter of what one wills it to be—and it would preclude others from viewing such claims as anything other than preposterous.

The law of contradiction also means that we can’t change the past. What we can know of the truth all resides in the past, because the present is fleeting and confusing and tomorrow has yet to come. The past, on the other hand, is complete. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas go so far as to say that changing the past—making what has been not to have been—is denied even to God. Because if something both happened and didn’t happen, no human understanding is possible. And God created us with the capacity for understanding.

That’s the law of contradiction, which the art of doublethink denies and violates. Doublethink is manifest in the fact that the state ministry in which Winston is tortured is called the Ministry of Love. It is manifest in the three slogans displayed on the state’s Ministry of Truth: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” And as we have seen, the regime in 1984 exists precisely to repeal the past. If the past can be changed, anything can be changed—man can surpass even the power of God. But still, to what end?"

The entire article is worth reading:

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/orwells- ... e=hs_email

[yankees60]

1984 redux:

"As the first essential step of his education, Winston has to learn doublethink—a way of thinking that defies the law of contradiction. In Aristotle, the law of contradiction is the basis of all reasoning, the means of making sense of the world. It is the law that says that X and Y cannot be true at the same time if they’re mutually exclusive. For instance, if A is taller than B and B is taller than C, C cannot be taller than A. The law of contradiction means things like that.

In our time, the law of contradiction would mean that a governor, say, could not simultaneously hold that the COVID pandemic renders church services too dangerous to allow, and also that massive protest marches are fine. It would preclude a man from declaring himself a woman, or a woman declaring herself a man, as if one’s sex is simply a matter of what one wills it to be—and it would preclude others from viewing such claims as anything other than preposterous.

The law of contradiction also means that we can’t change the past. What we can know of the truth all resides in the past, because the present is fleeting and confusing and tomorrow has yet to come. The past, on the other hand, is complete. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas go so far as to say that changing the past—making what has been not to have been—is denied even to God. Because if something both happened and didn’t happen, no human understanding is possible. And God created us with the capacity for understanding.

That’s the law of contradiction, which the art of doublethink denies and violates. Doublethink is manifest in the fact that the state ministry in which Winston is tortured is called the Ministry of Love. It is manifest in the three slogans displayed on the state’s Ministry of Truth: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” And as we have seen, the regime in 1984 exists precisely to repeal the past. If the past can be changed, anything can be changed—man can surpass even the power of God. But still, to what end?"

The entire article is worth reading:

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/orwells- ... e=hs_email

Just responding to the two sections I highlighted....

1) Is inconsistency equal to contradiction? Are any of so pure that all of our actions are consistent with other? If we are inconsistent between what we say or do then does that automatically negate or prove invalid BOTH the seeming contradictions or inconsistencies?

2) All truth may reside in the past but when do we know such truth? How much time needs to pass prior to knowing this truth that resides in the past? When President Truman had an approval rating in the low 20s % all his actions had been in the past. Yet now he's regarding as being in the top tier of presidents. The past did not change. But how did the truth regarding Truman change?

The first definitive biography of President Jackson was not written until 140 years after his presidency. Again nothing in the past changed but 140 years later but suspect the truth believed regarding him was different once that book had come out than what had believed about him in the prior 140 years.

Don't things like this come down to the famous questions, "What is reality?", "What is truth?".

Note I have never studied philosophy in any way so I have no knowledge of the methods of answering specific philosophical questions.

Vinny

[Mountaineer]

Don't things like this come down to the famous questions, "What is reality?", "What is truth?".

Note I have never studied philosophy in any way so I have no knowledge of the methods of answering specific philosophical questions.

Vinny

Two comments: 1. "I am the way, the truth, and the life." John 14.6 and note the significance and meaning of the 'I am'. "What is truth?" - said Pontius Pilate when washing his hands of the situation. As I understand it, truth is external and objective and anchored in the eternal, not internal and subjective and situational as many "feel" things are. (I think we have plowed this ground before.). 2. I think the main point of the article was how the current situation is similar to that described in the book 1984 - and the caution of how bad it can get if we allow history (what is reality?) to be rewritten instead of learned from; I've read some articles that say if you want to know how things were, say in the US in the past, that are likely somewhat accurate, read newspapers that were written prior to 1880 or so, especially do not depend on today's history books. YMMV