Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
General News

A Philosophical View of Self-Contradiction

By       Message Manfred Weidhorn     Permalink    (# of views)   3 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H4 10/25/18

Author 505282
- Advertisement -

A PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW OF SELF-CONTRADICTION

By Manfred Weidhorn

ONE of life's intellectual pleasures is to catch an opponent in a debate contradicting him or herself. If you cannot challenge the person's facts, at least you can disarm him of his logic. Liberals (on forced school bussing) and conservatives (on abortion) have been found guilty of talking one way and acting in another way. Though it is often hard to live up to one's ideals, such inconsistencies are reprehensible and deserve the ad hominem epithet of "hypocrisy."

These deplorable persons give a bad name to all forms of self- contradiction, the good as well as the bad. For some self- contradictions are, believe it or not, defensible. A statement clashing with one's action, as in the above examples, is surely different in quality from a statement clashing with another statement by the same person. The latter form of self-contradiction is, for one thing, more common. It also has a worthy tradition. It was famously celebrated by Walt Whitman, when he declared, "Do I contradict myself?/ Very well, then, I contradict myself." He clearly saw nothing to be ashamed of in his undisciplined verbal ejaculations. Indeed he sounds defiant, implying, in the language of the streets, "So do me something!"

- Advertisement -

What he was getting at was spelled out with greater clarity by his contemporary, Emerson, in a less streetworthy statement: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Notice the concessions made by the two adjectives, "foolish" and "little." They imply that, normally , consistency is indeed a preferred modus operandi but that exceptional circumstances demand exceptional responses. That is, one should have both the imagination and the flexibility to shift opinions at certain junctures, something that pedants ("foolish," "little minds") ignore. (A parallel aphorism celebrating exceptionalism is, "All things in moderation, including moderation.") Emerson's nuanced statement makes Whitman's look hyperbolic

and simplistic

But Emerson's version of the idea does not provide proof of its validity. Why should we not take a stand in favor of the much-honored virtue of consistency? For the answer, we turn to Montaigne, who, channeling ancient Greek wisdom, said, "I may by chance sometimes contradict myself, but I never contradict the truth." Now at last we confront the stark reality behind these irritating encomiums to inconsistency: People are inconsistent because reality is. Consistency--at the heart of reason--is a human construct meant to unriddle the world. It may be self-validating but often falls short of its mission of reflecting or describing the way things really are. Life is a minefield of paradoxes, ironies, counter-productive actions and counter-intuitive results. Hence to contradict oneself sometimes is in fact to be faithful to the "truth" or to "reality' or to "nature."

- Advertisement -

Various important intellectual disciplines provide ample proof for this initially dissonant sounding idea. Consider religion. The German philosopher Karl Jaspers says of Jesus: "[He] shows little concern for logical consistency: 'He that is not with me is against me".He that is not against us is on our side.'" Or again, "'Resist not evil".I bring not peace but a sword.'" Jaspers concludes that both Jesus's "actions and his words seem contradictory by the standards of reason".The Christian canon"is so rich in contradictory themes that there is no"key to the Gospel."

People favoring reason, science, and secularism might not be impressed by the example of Jesus, but things are no better in their own realm of inquiry. Science is occasionally as much entangled in self-contradiction as is religion. Consider the observation by Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics: "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." Just as there is no key to the Gospel, so is there no key to unlock the riddle of the scientific vision of the universe. Our ever-exploding knowledge leads not to understanding or wisdom but to unanswerable questions and persistent puzzlement. We know and yet we do not know.

Indeed modern physics--at least as viewed by an outsider--seems to speak of an entity being both a particle and a wave; of a cat in a box that is or is not dead; of particles that cannot be simultaneously observed and accurately measured; of possible multiple universes; of incomplete systems of mathematics; of warped space and time, curved light, haywire gravity, black holes. All these contradict the pre-modern but still relevant Newtonian system.

In literature, as well, the idea has been forwarded, by Keats and Scott Fitzgerald among others, that simultaneously holding contradictory ideas is a sign of sanity or openmindedness or insight.

Some Shakespeare scholars have borrowed the term "complementarity" (or duality) from physics to show how his plays are in constant tension with each other

Having a limited sense of what is out there and being consequently somewhat disconnected from objectivereality is only one of the two main reasons for the phenomenon of self-contradiction. The other one has to do with subjectivereality. Logical consistency is at the heart of reason, but, as many thinkers through the ages have remarked, reason, while being the one trait that differentiates us from the beasts, is not in control of human nature. It has to contend with emotion--that faculty we share with the animal kingdom from which we arose--and emotions often, despite our wishes, gain the upper hand over reason.

- Advertisement -

A synonym for emotions is "moods." We all have moods, good and bad, and these alter our perception of objective reality as much as do our own innate epistemological limitations. Hence the objective fact that two and two make four is true no matter the mood we are in, but whether one likes the Second Amendment is for many people a matter of mood: One may be in the abstract in favor of unlimited gun rights until the horror of the Sandy Hook shootings changes one's mind. We are far more under the sway of moods than of the strictures and rules of reason, and experience is a great mood changer. Reason we can master, but moods, not so much.

The absence of a "key," like the presence of distorting moods, turns the idea of occasionally necessary self-contradiction into outright skepticism. Hence Goethe cites approvingly the partly Muslim, partly ancient Greek principle "that there exists nothing of which the contrary may not be affirmed." This fact has epistemological consequences: "After the contrary of any proposition has been maintained," Goethe declares, "doubt arises as to which is really true." Goethe also, in considering Hegel's dialectics, spoke of the "regulated, methodically cultivated spirit of contradiction which is innate in all men." That would of course include self-contradiction. This is the same Goethe, incidentally, who in 1826 stated that Shakespeare, in writing his plays, "never thought of the stage" and, a year later, that Shakespeare wrote "for his theatre"had the stage in view when he wrote."

One might wonder whether this legitimization of self-contradiction does not give President Trump a free pass. The answer is, not quite. His self-contradictions are so frequent and glaring and factually groundless as to make them absurd. On the other hand, in the long lists of his defects, self-contradiction is a minor sin.

I should also note that I myself try to be consistent whenever possible and try not to take shelter in offering this intellectual justification of the reverse.

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

For 51 years Professor of English at Yeshiva University. Author of 13 books and over a hundred essays.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Jesus: The Grim Truth

Who Are the Real "Deplorables"?

Religion and Science, Again

A Great Debate: Is Humanity Essentially Evil?

Three Hitler Paradoxes

The Monocausal Explanation and its Travails

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

2 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments


Manfred Weidhorn

Become a Fan
Author 505282

(Member since Apr 10, 2016), 29 articles, 97 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

President Trump has given self-contradiction a bad name. So what is good about inconsistency when rightly used?

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 25, 2018 at 1:58:59 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 

Derryl Hermanutz

Become a Fan
Author 64335

(Member since Apr 27, 2011), 47 fans, 24 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1404 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

If there is objective reality, then statements about objective reality can be true or false. The true statement will contradict all of the false statements about the same bit of objective reality. E.g. Putin hacked the election. Putin didn't hack the election. The epistemic problem is a question of who knows the truth, and who does not. Putin knows he didn't hack the election. The DNC brass whose emails were leaked by a (now-murdered) insider know Putin didn't hack the election. But people lie, and the DNC and Democrats and "the left" in general and the mass media repeat the lies as if they are the truth. Most of the people who are repeating the lie believe the lie is the truth: they believe Putin hacked the election. Other people, who don't know the truth either, believe Putin didn't hack the election. So people disagree about the objective truth of the matter. Believing the lie does not make the lie true, but we base our thinking, feelings, motivations, morality, and actions on what we believe to be true. In most cases (some would argue in all cases) we simply do not know things with absolute rational certainty. We do not have "certain knowledge". At best we have "rational beliefs" - beliefs that are built from and supported by a variety of different kinds of evidence, including the empirical evidence of directly seeing what happened and what did not happen. But with virtually all political issues, none of the opposing parties directly saw what happened. They only know what they are told by insiders and by the mass media. And we know from past experience that insiders lie, and the mass media either knowingly or naively repeats the lies as "the news"; and many people believe the news is "true". On 9/11, when I first saw the scenes of planes flying into buildings on TV, I believed "the news" that terrorrists fles planes into concrete and steel skyscrapers, which burned down the buildings. But before that I already knew that concrete and steel buildings cannot be burned down. I simply did not apply my previous knowledge to my then-belief in the truth of the news. But when others started reporting that plane crashes cannot burn down concrete and steel skyscrapers, I was reminded of what I already knew, so I stopped believing the lie that the planes had burned down the buildings. It is possible to have 2 contradictory ideas in your head; but when you bring them both into conscious awareness at the same time you cannot "believe" both sides of the contradiction unless you are already insane - irrational - somebody whose beliefs are not based on and supported by empirical evidence and conceptual understanding of how reality does - and does not - work. Most people do not form their beliefs by gathering empirical evidence, analyzing it, forming hypotheses, testing the hypotheses experimentally, then refining their ideas until their conceptual understanding matches how reality actually behaves; then believing that you "know" the truth of the matter. That is the process of rational belief formation/ Most people believe what they are told by other people whom they accept as "authorities". But the authorities disagree with each other, and diviide into imposing camps, and people choose one camp or another to align with. Then people believe what their authorities tell them; and don't believe what the competing authorities tell them. What does any of this have to do with the truth about objective reality, and the irrationality in believing both sides of a contradiction at the same time? Not much. But the Enlightenment idea that people form their beliefs rationally is simply false. People still believe whatever "their" authorities tell them. Most people are not rational animals. They are moral animals. They do not care about what is objectively true or false. They want to know who is to blame. If - due to emotional, psychological or moral feelings - a person does not like somebody or does not like some idea: the person will seek out and believe any ideas that attack that person or idea. People do not even know why they do what they do. They are motivated by their animal urges (feelings); then after they have done something they think up rational and/or virtuous sounding "reasons" why they did it. People engage in motivated resaoning, not evidence-based reasoning. So the niceties of logic have virtually zero effect on changing anybody's mind - unless that person happens to be a philosopher who believes in objective reality and wants to know the truth - even if the truth is inimical to the philosopher's material or psychological-emotional-moral interests.

Submitted on Friday, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:58:03 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
Indent

Manfred Weidhorn

Become a Fan
Author 505282

(Member since Apr 10, 2016), 29 articles, 97 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Derryl Hermanutz:   New Content

Very good analysis of the problem of belief. But when you say, " But before that I already knew that concrete and steel buildings cannot be burned down. I simply did not apply my previous knowledge to my then-belief in the truth of the news. But when others started reporting that plane crashes cannot burn down concrete and steel skyscrapers, I was reminded of what I already knew, so I stopped believing the lie that the planes had burned down the buildings," you treat the flammability of steel & concrete as a fact ["I knew"] when it was or is a conjecture--unless you are engineer with frontline [i.e. experimental] knowledge of the issue.

Submitted on Sunday, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:15:03 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment