In my previous post I said, "Anything can be proven to be true if we affirm a single contradiction." Here's the proof of that statement:
We begin with a contradiction (according to relativism, both of these things can be true at the same time).
A. Christianity is true.
B. Christianity is false.
Now, from this we can prove anything. Let’s prove that President Obama is a space alien.
1. We know it is true that either (1) Christianity is true or (2) President Obama is a space alien (we know this is true because 1 could be either true or false depending upon whether we appeal to A or B above).
2. Christianity is not true (based on B above).
3. Therefore, President Obama is a space alien.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is fun, isn’t it. I’ve never found a real good application of it in actual dialogue, though. Fanny attempted something similar with her boss one day; it wasn’t real persuasive. For one, it’s an attempt to get your opponent to agreeably follow through a valid pattern of reasoning. The problem you are facing with the relativist, however, is the fact that they have embraced irrationalism; and in some cases, they’re happy evangelists for the same.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, in context, I think emphasis on another problem might be more fruitful. Since relativism is part and parcel of postmodernism (both in the moral and epistemic sense), and the monolithic maxim of postmodernism is an authentically lived life, it seems that pressing the soar spot of the relativist’s inauthentic praxiology would be more productive than a linear proof of their inconsistent epistemology. But, of course, each angle is relative to the person you are encountering ;).
Even logically speaking, I’m not sure of how comfortable I am with deeming the principle of explosion a “proof.” First, it appears that the disjunction is not a real one since one must concede the relativist’s contrary assumptions (both A and B). Secondly, the conclusion has its negation, which is equally “proven” by another disjunctive elimination (i.e., But 4. Christianity is true; therefore, 5. it’s not the case that Pres. Obama is a space alien). So, according to our proof, both our conclusion and its negation are equally demonstrable.
According to this, then, it seems an astute relativist could “prove” epistemological skepticism with the very principle we’re bring to bear against it.
Maybe I’ve overlooked something...any thoughts?
I think the value of the principle of explosion is demonstrating that everything loses meaning if we affirm a single contradiction. Relativists are generally comfortable affirming some contradictions (generally issues of morality and religion). But they cannot live consistently with the implications of such a statement. The principle of explosion is a way of demonstrating that if they affirm one contradiction, then all things are ultimately meaningless.
ReplyDeleteRegarding whether or not the principle of explosion is a real disjunction. Of course it is illogical to affirm the relativists contrary assumptions, but that's really the point. It seems, therefore, that using a disjunction to exploit this inconsistency is very appropriate. I personally don't see how it would negate the realness of the disjunction.
Both the conclusion and the negation are equally demonstrable--that's the point. Again, while the relativists is generally happy to live with some contradiction (it matters of religious belief, for example), I think he or she will be less likely to embrace the loss of all meaning.
You are correct, Steve, the principle of explosion does in fact demonstrate that the affirmation of contrary and/or contradictory propositions leads to the reality that “everything loses meaning” and that “all thing are ultimately meaningless.” However, for this conclusion to be the slightest be remarkable, then we must be saying that all OBJECTIVE meaning is lost. To logically force someone, who willingly embraces a subjectivist epistemology, to the conclusion that there is no OBJECTIVE meaning doesn’t seem to have much utility.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a good point. This would be especially true of a relativist who was rigorously consistent in his relativism. But I think the utility lies in the fact that there's no such thing as a rigorously consistent relativist. ;)
ReplyDeleteTrue indeed!
ReplyDelete