Paradox???: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Paradox??? » Paradox???

Paradox???
Is it confusion??

Page: 1 2

Paradox???

TellMeNow
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 25

Posted 04/02/07 - 01:38 PM: Subject: Paradox???	#1
Can someone explain the idea of the paradox to me? I don't understand the purpose of it at all. I know paradox as being used as a tool to enlighten, especially in Zen Buddhism. But isn't the paradox an irrational, nihilistic, and effete tool in the process of human understanding? Reality is. So in trying to "process" reality through this new idea, I am trying to find a new way of understanding, etc. But if reality is, and assuming reality is, in a sense, unknowable, what is the purpose of this "re-introduction" of ideas? Logically, this seems unnecessary. Mystery is everywhere. Even in asking this question, I am oppenning up myself to, (hopefully), new ideas and thoguhts that will, most likely, challenge my way of thinking, and force it to evolve. And we do not ask questions to simply "rearrange the furniture", we want to find something new, to realize something, to understand better. We don't ask expecting nothing new, or even just a feeling, but because we believe that there is something to be known. The paradox implies that there is not anythign o be know, when we very much know that there must be soemthing to be known. So in begging te question of what is to be known, it is truly redundant! I am not saying that paradoxes do not exist or that they shouldn't. I am asking the purpose of the paradox, especially posed as a question, challenge, or even spiritual tool. I welcome all ideas.

teleplasm
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 39

Posted 04/02/07 - 02:51 PM:	#2
A paradox in Philosophy (I leave aside loose uses of the term in everyday speech) is an apparently valid argument that leads to a contradiction. For example, Zeno's "proofs" that motion is impossible, and that the hare can never catch the tortoise. As we know that motion is possible, and that the hare will sometimes catch the tortoise, we wonder where the fault in the argument can be. Is it some simple non sequitur? Is there an incoherent concept involved? Is a definition really bogus and not defining anything properly? And so on. Attempts to resolve paradoxes have frequently led to new pathways in Philosophy, Logic, and Mathematics, though of course they have also caused embarrassment.

Jehu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 697

Posted 04/02/07 - 04:40 PM:	#3
A paradox, as I understand it is, an inconsistency or contradiction between what is logically tenable, and what is observed to be the case, just as teleplasm has said. However, I do not believe that the nature of reality is such that it would allow for the existence of logical contradictions, and that the appearance of contradictions is a result of either faulty logic, or an erroneous metaphysical view. Zeno, for example, refuted the prevailing Newtonian notions of absolute space and time, by logically demonstrating that motion, as it was conceived of at the time, was simply not possible. Paradoxes serve the same purpose within the Zen Buddhist tradition, in that they force the student to question the prevailing metaphysical view (materialism/physicalism), and open the up to the possibility of another kind of view (absolute idealism). A view, by the way, in which Zeno’s, and other paradoxes no longer hold.
It is not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye is able to see, that is the true reality.

ejddar
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 01, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 27

Posted 04/02/07 - 06:50 PM:	#4
Zeno would have not written his paradoxes if it wasn't for Aristotle's Wheel paradox which brought up questions about infinity. Oddly enough the paradox has been recently resolved or disproved.Which would put Zeno's paradoxes into contention, and quite possible refute philosophy leading all the way back to Plato, and refute the metaphysics of modern day dualism. Time as it may seem has nothing to do with infinity, and motion for that matter, It points more along the lines of quality of being. In this case it may be the empirical that is in contention and not the abstract. What we "know" to be true is that something exist and the abstract is "nothing" , then why do we move. modern philosophy is built upon Zeno's paradox Jehu we should discuss ideas on forms of abstracta/mind dualism because I believe Absolute Idealism may be refuted as nothing more than nonsense

teleplasm
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 39

Posted 04/03/07 - 03:13 AM:	#5
Jehu, because we encounter contradictions, we don't have to abandon Logic (and of course the paradoxes along with it, as they rely on Logic) in favour of mumbo-jumbo like Zen Buddhism. That's quite irrational and desperate. Zeno's paradoxes can all be resolved by careful analysis, for example by correcting the idea that moving entails moving at a place. I don't know what you have got into your head by saying that Zeno "refuted the prevailing Newtonian notions of absolute space and time." Zeno lived in the 5th Century B.C., predating even Aristotle! The prevailing notions at that time were those of the very earliest kinds of philosophy and physics.

Jehu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 697

Posted 04/03/07 - 01:31 PM:	#6
teleplasm wrote: Jehu, because we encounter contradictions, we don't have to abandon Logic (and of course the paradoxes along with it, as they rely on Logic) in favour of mumbo-jumbo like Zen Buddhism. That's quite irrational and desperate. Zeno's paradoxes can all be resolved by careful analysis, for example by correcting the idea that moving entails moving at a place. I don't know what you have got into your head by saying that Zeno "refuted the prevailing Newtonian notions of absolute space and time." Zeno lived in the 5th Century B.C., predating even Aristotle! The prevailing notions at that time were those of the very earliest kinds of philosophy and physics. I’m am at a complete loss as to how you inferred, from what I actually said, that I though that we must abandon logic, in order to eliminate paradoxes; when it was clearly the metaphysical view that I said must be abandoned. Moreover, your flippant characterization of a twenty-five hundred year old wisdom tradition, that has spawned some of the greatest thinker the world has ever know, as ‘mumbo-jumbo’ indicates either a colossal arrogance, or profound ignorance of the Buddhist metaphysical doctrine. And finally, one could easily infer, from the context of my original post, that it was not Newton’s theories themselves that Zeno refuted, but the underlying metaphysical view upon which they were based; a naïve materialistic atomism that is as old as philosophy itself.
It is not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye is able to see, that is the true reality.

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1529

Posted 04/03/07 - 07:02 PM:	#7
A so-called “paradox” occurs when we hold two (or more) beliefs about something that cannot both (or all) be true, but which individually seem to be true. The beliefs are logically incompatible or even contradictory of one another, yet as best as we can determine via logical analysis and empirical confirmation, they individually seem to be true. Paradox is about our thinking, about our claims about things, not about the things themselves. Mystics and other supernaturalists commonly express their notions in language that is nebulous, metaphorical, ambiguous, and include ideas that are logically incompatible or even contradictory—and then they claim that the resulting illogic is a deep “paradox” of the “realities” and “mysteries” of the supernatural or mystical realms. Paradox is not about the “reality” being referred to by our ideas and beliefs, it is about our ideas and beliefs. A paradoxical situation is addressed and resolved by clearing up our thinking about the issue, by analysis and re-framing of presuppositions, ambiguities, equivocations, entailments etc. Any valid but factually false conclusion (“Therefore Achilles can never overtake the tortoise") reveals that there is at least one factually false premise in the reasoning. The difficulty in resolving “paradoxes” is that what exactly is wrong with our thinking about one (or more) of the premises is not easy for us to unravel. Another kind of difficulty in the resolution of some so-called "paradoxes" (a.k.a. "mysteries of the faith") is that people cannot actually establish the truth of their premises, but are not willing to surrender them even when they lead to incompatible or contradictory conclusions. Edited by jdrw on 04/03/07 - 07:13 PM
OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

TellMeNow
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2007
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 25

Posted 04/03/07 - 08:56 PM:	#8
I retract this statement from my first post: “But if reality is, and assuming reality is, in a sense, unknowable, what is the purpose of this "re-introduction" of ideas?” How do we know when we are thinking of any one thing, what is the “true-ness” of it. I meant to say that knowing can not be only about perspective, which is what the paradox-as-a-tool seems to imply. “Another kind of difficulty in the resolution of some so-called "paradoxes" (a.k.a. "mysteries of the faith") is that people cannot actually establish the truth of their premises, but are not willing to surrender them even when they lead to incompatible or contradictory conclusions.” This statement is another example of a person further confusing an issue that is yet unresolved. The issue is not about surrendering. There is no surrender. The idea may be, in a hypothetical situation, that DESPITE the fact that the premises obviously SEEM to be false and true at the same time, the IMPLICATIONS of ALL of the variations of interpretation are completely incompatible with a person’s sensibility, wishes, AND understanding of the situation. Basically, whether the paradox is true or false is of no concern and interest. The answer IS no answer = there is no need for the paradox. So I have arrived at the idea of the paradox being irrelevent, completley by a personal choice.

teleplasm
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 39

Posted 04/04/07 - 03:25 AM:	#9
Jehu wrote: I’m am at a complete loss as to how you inferred, from what I actually said, that I though that we must abandon logic, in order to eliminate paradoxes; when it was clearly the metaphysical view that I said must be abandoned. Moreover, your flippant characterization of a twenty-five hundred year old wisdom tradition, that has spawned some of the greatest thinker the world has ever know, as ‘mumbo-jumbo’ indicates either a colossal arrogance, or profound ignorance of the Buddhist metaphysical doctrine. And finally, one could easily infer, from the context of my original post, that it was not Newton’s theories themselves that Zeno refuted, but the underlying metaphysical view upon which they were based; a naïve materialistic atomism that is as old as philosophy itself. (1) What "metaphysical view"? That the hare can catch the tortoise? Surely you don't want to abandon this! If all you mean is that we should criticise the assumptions in the argument, then that's what I myself said in my first post. (2) Stating that Zeno "refuted the prevailing Newtonian notions" implies, on any reasonable interpretation, that Newtonian notions prevailed in the 5th Century B.C. (3) I don't, needless to say, accept that Zen Buddhism "spawned some of the greatest thinkers the world has ever known." The activities of the Zen Masters seem to me to have been closer to performance art than anything recognisable as philosophy.

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1529

Posted 04/04/07 - 07:38 AM:	#10
TellMeNow wrote: This statement is another example of a person further confusing an issue that is yet unresolved. The issue itself, the alleged paradox, is a confusion either in our reasoning or in how we’ve constructed our representation of reality to ourselves. The paradox reveals that our representation of reality cannot be the way it seems to be, even though we haven’t yet figured out what’s wrong with our representation of and reasoning about the issue. Our experience of a paradox is analogous to our arriving at what we know to be the wrong answer in a math problem, but not understanding where it is that we went wrong. We check and recheck, and all our reasoning and every step seems to be correct, yet the result is a patently wrong answer. The resolution of a paradox, as with the resolution of such a math problem, is to figure out where our thinking went awry. The issue is not about surrendering. There is no surrender. The idea may be, in a hypothetical situation, that DESPITE the fact that the premises obviously SEEM to be false and true at the same time, the IMPLICATIONS of ALL of the variations of interpretation are completely incompatible with a person’s sensibility, wishes, AND understanding of the situation. One common resolution of paradox occurs when we arrive at an understanding of how one of our premises actually is mistaken. We then “surrender” this mistaken idea, this false premise, and the paradox is thereby resolved.
OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.