Significance and meaning of Contradiction

[Michael19682]

Years ago I used to talk a lot about religious topics with Evangelicals and other Protestant people. Obviously I thought they were good people if I talked with them. In the end, in almost all cases, the conversation ended because they saw in Catholic doctrine “all sorts of contradictions”.
In fact, before we would even begin a discussion, the reminder was “The Bible doesn’t contradict itself.”

The first few thoughts I have:

1. the English word for a canine is “dog” while another language, say Spanish, calls the same animal “perro”. And many other languages can add many other words. Do these represent contradictions on the animal I call a dog?
2. some languages, I’ve heard Latin in particular and possibly others, have a word which embraces both sides of a spectrum. In other words, it embraces a physical, state-of-being “contradiction”.
3. And lastly, if one says, “if it rains then the sky is usually dark and cloudy,” and someone else says, “if it rains then the sky is open and clear, with full sun shine,” must these necessarily be contradictions?

I want to know because I have studied other philosophies – something I forgot to mention above today – and was wondering if for example, so and so from another religion says we should not lie, where ours says the same thing; but is there a contradiction present because the words were uttered from a foreign god?

Any thoughts would be helpful

 

[SilverShadow22]

I don’t know what you mean by contradiction,

What you seem to be describing is paradox.

And I’m not sure what they mean by Catholicism is full of contradictions.

Are you trying to describe a situation in which they do not understand the definitions of our words, and therefore see contradictions where there are none?

As for the Bible, it appears to contradict itself all the time. Just like the proverbs “too many cooks ruin the broth” APPEARS to contradict “two heads are better than one”, when in reality, they simply apply to different circumstances. Both are equally true, when applied correctly. Floating in a vacuum, they appear contradictory.

I wish I could come up with actual Bible examples, but it’s late at night.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I think that sort of gambit crops up with people who aren’t used to thinking about anything very much. If you could give us a couple of examples we can illustrate better. I find it constantly in linguistics, history, psychology, what biology I understand, politics, geology, economics, etc. Schools teach people to be superficial these days.

I mainly taught myself in recent years but the germ of multi-dimensional thinking was there in my youth. My parents and many teachers had it. It was in quite a lot of books. Sadly it’s less to be seen.

Get them to think around a variety of subjects more. The paradox they themselves have been since they got out of bed ought to make their faces go white! Of course it is possible to critique many “Catholic” foibles but that may not truly interest them.

Eventually they might see that you are not a threat to their health. They are surrounded by enough half-baked people who have labels other than “Catholic”.

Some people just have a habit of mental superficiality, maybe their grandmothers shamed them into doing it or something!

 

[Michael19682]

I don’t know what you mean by contradiction,

What you seem to be describing is paradox.

And I’m not sure what they mean by Catholicism is full of contradictions.

Are you trying to describe a situation in which they do not understand the definitions of our words, and therefore see contradictions where there are none?

As for the Bible, it appears to contradict itself all the time. Just like the proverbs “too many cooks ruin the broth” APPEARS to contradict “two heads are better than one”, when in reality, they simply apply to different circumstances. Both are equally true, when applied correctly. Floating in a vacuum, they appear contradictory.

I wish I could come up with actual Bible examples, but it’s late at night.

In retrospect it seems to have been, One truth, One way, One answer. God’s answer is the answer, so any answer that differs is contradiction: And since they were operating from solo scriptura, they would derive these answers like in geometric proofs. Looking back I can see how they would find contradictions in that manner everywhere.
It’s different for Catholics, I believe; not that we have hearts and others don’t, but that we learn to trust our hearts and accept God’s guidance there – to recognize the Lord’s voice even in as you say “paradox”.
Still, it was a powerful experience to watch people work out their lives with what to them was essentially a set of axioms. Makes me wonder about solo scriptura.

 

[Michael19682]

I think that sort of gambit crops up with people who aren’t used to thinking about anything very much. If you could give us a couple of examples we can illustrate better. I find it constantly in linguistics, history, psychology, what biology I understand, politics, geology, economics, etc. Schools teach people to be superficial these days.

I mainly taught myself in recent years but the germ of multi-dimensional thinking was there in my youth. My parents and many teachers had it. It was in quite a lot of books. Sadly it’s less to be seen.

Get them to think around a variety of subjects more. The paradox they themselves have been since they got out of bed ought to make their faces go white! Of course it is possible to critique many “Catholic” foibles but that may not truly interest them.

Eventually they might see that you are not a threat to their health. They are surrounded by enough half-baked people who have labels other than “Catholic”.

Some people just have a habit of mental superficiality, maybe their grandmothers shamed them into doing it or something!

I didn’t dare approach them with multidimensionality, if I understand what that means?
Not just schools either, but it gets reinforced in the culture around them.
I didn’t consider shame in the equation.
I suppose one could not think outside the box if one had lots of shame;
but then what halts a person from acting contrary to God’s message if it isn’t
at least some measure of that emotional affect?

 

[Rhubarb]

1. “the dog is white” and “El perro es blanco” expresses the same proposition. The sentences both express the same logical content, they convey the same idea exactly. There is no contradiction.
2. I don’t know exactly what you are asking here.
3. A⊃B and A⊃~B does not entail a contradiction unless you introduce premise A alone. In fact, an argument that assumes A⊃B and A⊃~B, by reductio ad absurdum you can conclude ~A because A would entail a contradiction.

 

[Michael19682]

1. “the dog is white” and “El perro es blanco” expresses the same proposition. The sentences both express the same logical content, they convey the same idea exactly. There is no contradiction.
2. I don’t know exactly what you are asking here.
3. A⊃B and A⊃~B does not entail a contradiction unless you introduce premise A alone. In fact, an argument that assumes A⊃B and A⊃~B, by reductio ad absurdum you can conclude ~A because A would entail a contradiction.

What if the English speaker knows no Spanish? The sound is literally,
LPAYROWSBLANKO. Sounds something like a person named L pays someone named Rows a blank check? I would ask a Spanish speaker what “the dog is white” sounds like in Spanish?

Take the word Screen. It can mean to show something like a movie, or to remove something, as in a screening filter.

Explain your 3rd statement. I’m running on the assumption that the horizontal U is the implies symbol.

 

[inocente]

Any thoughts would be helpful

"According to Catholic tradition, a sign of contradiction points to the presence of Christ or the presence of the divine due to the union of that person or reality with God. In his book, Sign of Contradiction, John Paul II says that “sign of contradiction” might be “a distinctive definition of Christ and of his Church.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_contradiction

 

[Rhubarb]

What if the English speaker knows no Spanish? The sound is literally,
LPAYROWSBLANKO. Sounds something like a person named L pays someone named Rows a blank check? I would ask a Spanish speaker what “the dog is white” sounds like in Spanish?

Take the word Screen. It can mean to show something like a movie, or to remove something, as in a screening filter.

Explain your 3rd statement. I’m running on the assumption that the horizontal U is the implies symbol.

Sentences of natural language have content that can be analyzed. In particular, propositions, which (generally speaking) have a truth-value. “The dog is white” can be true or false, so we call it a proposition. We analyze propositions using logic.

“The dog is white” expresses an idea. Namely that there is a dog which is white. “El perri es blanco” expresses the same idea - it might just be that the language barrier is preventing the communication of said idea. Both propositions have the same logical content though.

Your question about “screen” is a problem of ambiguity. Screen for a window and a cinema screen are different things. Generally in philosophy we say that the word “screen” has different senses. In one sense, a screen is a fine mesh. In another sense it is a surface to project an image on. This is why in an argument or debate it is important to explain terms.

Logically speaking, a Contradiction is when you express an idea and its negation at the same time. “It is raining and it is not raining” is a proposition (it is raining) and its negation (it is not raining). “⊃” is the symbol for implication, an if-then ststement. The letters represent a proposition in much the same way variables in algebra represent numbers. “If A then B” is written A⊃B. The tilde represents a negation. So “if it is raining then the sidewall is wet” can be symbolized as A⊃B . “If it is raining and the sidewalk is NOT wet” can be symbolized as A⊃~B.

 

[Michael19682]

"According to Catholic tradition, a sign of contradiction points to the presence of Christ or the presence of the divine due to the union of that person or reality with God. In his book, Sign of Contradiction, John Paul II says that “sign of contradiction” might be “a distinctive definition of Christ and of his Church.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_contradiction

Shocked that the Church has an answer for this.
VERY HELPFUL!

 

[Michael19682]

Sentences of natural language have content that can be analyzed. In particular, propositions, which (generally speaking) have a truth-value. “The dog is white” can be true or false, so we call it a proposition. We analyze propositions using logic.

“The dog is white” expresses an idea. Namely that there is a dog which is white. “El perri es blanco” expresses the same idea - it might just be that the language barrier is preventing the communication of said idea. Both propositions have the same logical content though.

Your question about “screen” is a problem of ambiguity. Screen for a window and a cinema screen are different things. Generally in philosophy we say that the word “screen” has different senses. In one sense, a screen is a fine mesh. In another sense it is a surface to project an image on. This is why in an argument or debate it is important to explain terms.

Logically speaking, a Contradiction is when you express an idea and its negation at the same time. “It is raining and it is not raining” is a proposition (it is raining) and its negation (it is not raining). “⊃” is the symbol for implication, an if-then ststement. The letters represent a proposition in much the same way variables in algebra represent numbers. “If A then B” is written A⊃B. The tilde represents a negation. So “if it is raining then the sidewall is wet” can be symbolized as A⊃B . “If it is raining and the sidewalk is NOT wet” can be symbolized as A⊃~B.

Yes! They do have substantive content (as well as what you call logical content).
I used linguistic or idiomatic context as an example that points to contradiction, because I
was wondering if there exist any misunderstandings that can only be corrected through correct syntax, usage, and grammar. For example, in trying to determine the true meaning of contradiction, I was fascinated that there may be a “true” language: such as Latin: that must be the final reference point on a linguistic analysis that involves usage and sound. Grammar, as I recall, is crucial to understanding just as is logic. A person can express an idea in his own mind, yet convey the opposite given any number of possible errors. In such an instance, would a “contradiction” per se be attributable to the expression – that is, if we can’t discern the soul’s intention or meaning under conditions of grammatical or other ambiguity?
Just a note. One of the first things that heretics do is to “bend” common usage terms that are critical to correct understanding. I believe these are called tropes in certain instances ? – and figurative language, which Jesus used often – require extensive grounding in idiom, rhyme, meter, derivation and historical context to fully “appreciate”. It is the parables especially that I think we Catholics have real empowerment in discussing, yet that I was particularly critiqued as holding “contradictory” beliefs in regards to.

 

[Rhubarb]

Yes! They do have substantive content (as well as what you call logical content).
I used linguistic or idiomatic context as an example that points to contradiction, because I
was wondering if there exist any misunderstandings that can only be corrected through correct syntax, usage, and grammar. For example, in trying to determine the true meaning of contradiction, I was fascinated that there may be a “true” language: such as Latin: that must be the final reference point on a linguistic analysis that involves usage and sound. Grammar, as I recall, is crucial to understanding just as is logic. A person can express an idea in his own mind, yet convey the opposite given any number of possible errors. In such an instance, would a “contradiction” per se be attributable to the expression – that is, if we can’t discern the soul’s intention or meaning under conditions of grammatical or other ambiguity?
Just a note. One of the first things that heretics do is to “bend” common usage terms that are critical to correct understanding. I believe these are called tropes in certain instances ? – and figurative language, which Jesus used often – require extensive grounding in idiom, rhyme, meter, derivation and historical context to fully “appreciate”. It is the parables especially that I think we Catholics have real empowerment in discussing, yet that I was particularly critiqued as holding “contradictory” beliefs in regards to.

Logic is the language that we use to get past the ambiguities in natural languages. Logic is nothing more than a formal language where we stipulate the rules. We can control syntax and semantics precisely to analyze sentences.

A “contradiction due to the expression” isn’t a contradiction proper. It’s a failure to communicate. At least, that’s how I’d describe it.

 

[Michael19682]

Logic is the language that we use to get past the ambiguities in natural languages. Logic is nothing more than a formal language where we stipulate the rules. We can control syntax and semantics precisely to analyze sentences.

A “contradiction due to the expression” isn’t a contradiction proper. It’s a failure to communicate. At least, that’s how I’d describe it.

We get past ambiguity by stipulating the rules of syntax and semantics?
What about provisional stipulations where the informational (content) available can not yet be made conclusive given the available semantics and syntax?
For example, say one possible conclusion demands a stretch of reason, i.e., something very unlikely to happen. If we veer away from action (of whatever kind) that requires such a stretch of reason to conclusively “justify”, would not “such logic” leave us unknowing to the given conclusion, i.e., the resultant event, that would occur if and only if we pursued the conclusion, premising that the very unlikely was going to actually occur.

I ask because it seems that we throw away endless opportunity by ignoring that which we consider unlikely. The stakes involved in even one scientific advancement resultant from a highly unlikely proposition might be enormous. We might literally already be in the 27th century technologically but for those unwilling to try out the “madman’s” ideas.
As for natural language, how many people have had their faith stifled by the imposition of formal logic in conversations where the incredibly unlikely did occur?
It seems that natural language gets us out of the shackles of logic.

 

[Rhubarb]

We get past ambiguity by stipulating the rules of syntax and semantics?
What about provisional stipulations where the informational (content) available can not yet be made conclusive given the available semantics and syntax?
For example, say one possible conclusion demands a stretch of reason, i.e., something very unlikely to happen. If we veer away from action (of whatever kind) that requires such a stretch of reason to conclusively “justify”, would not “such logic” leave us unknowing to the given conclusion, i.e., the resultant event, that would occur if and only if we pursued the conclusion, premising that the very unlikely was going to actually occur.

I ask because it seems that we throw away endless opportunity by ignoring that which we consider unlikely. The stakes involved in even one scientific advancement resultant from a highly unlikely proposition might be enormous. We might literally already be in the 27th century technologically but for those unwilling to try out the “madman’s” ideas.
As for natural language, how many people have had their faith stifled by the imposition of formal logic in conversations where the incredibly unlikely did occur?
It seems that natural language gets us out of the shackles of logic.

“Logic” is used colloquially to mean “rational, makes sense, thoughtful, etc.” but that is not the proper use. Logic isn’t what Mr. Spock would have us believe what it is.

Logic is nothing more than a formal language. It is called formal because we stipulate the rules of it before we use it. Natural languages have rules of syntax and semantics. (And pragmatics) These rules can make discussion tricky. Like you said, the word “screen” has a few semantic contents depending on how it is used.

By controlling the syntax (by assigning connectives like negation, conjuction, disjunction, etc." and semantics (by assigning propositions to variables) we can look at the structure of sentences and arguments.

We can translate sentences of natural language into formal language so we can precisely see what is going on and what is trying to be communicated. To use logic properly all the rules of the language have to be stated up-front. There are several logics that use different rules, depending on what is needed. For instance, simple propositional calculus is easy for basic sentences, but you really need first-order logic to dig into the relationships between intra-sentence ideas.

This is why contradictions are a problem - because when we have set rules to the logic we are using, we can see what follows from already-accepted sentences. For instance, if we accept “If it is raining, then the grass is wet” and we also accept “it is raining”, we are logically bound to accept “the grass is wet” because it follows from the first two sentences. But if we accept “if it is raining, the grass is wet” and accept “if it is raining, the grass is not wet” we know we are (usually) logically committed to accepting “It is not raining” because if we accept “it is raining”, we get a contradiction.

 

[Rhubarb]

This probably isn’t helpful… I’m trying to give an overview but I’m leaving out a lot of the moving parts.

 

[Michael19682]

This probably isn’t helpful… I’m trying to give an overview but I’m leaving out a lot of the moving parts.

That’s ok. I’m learning that logic is a vast subject.

 

[Rhubarb]

That’s ok. I’m learning that logic is a vast subject.

It is. At least contemporary logic. It’s not a universal, binding thing. It’s just formal languages we use to analyze sentences. And each one we’ve created the rules for.

 

[Michael19682]

It is. At least contemporary logic. It’s not a universal, binding thing. It’s just formal languages we use to analyze sentences. And each one we’ve created the rules for.

Since this thread seems about to go kerplunk, I thought I might ask if you (or anyone) believes in randomness, or pure chance, as a form of manifestation for which there exists no possibility of logical organization, interpretation, or comprehension.

In light of one of the other links to The sign of Contradiction in Jesus and the Eucharist, I am very curious:

1. If a given Sign’s significance is known only to God, and by God only – men can make neither heads not tails of it in consensus despite every effort of logic – either we an have accident (a form of randomness) or else that which has yet to be revealed in significance.
2. Could this above wait and see principle be the key to understanding randomness or accident: Not from the subjective side of the logical analysis/organization, but from the objective side of the revealed. Of course, I would presuppose that there existed a technique of analysis capable of recognition as such, and when in such time, the objective randomness finally yielded to that self-same logical sensibility?
3. In which case above, the sign of contradiction works to make comprehensible not the real randomness involved, but the futility of every effort to make logical sense of contradictory appearances.

Ergo,
The significance of contradiction is senseless logic.
The meaning of contradiction is unknown until the sequence of all relevant events is concluded for all time.

 

[Rhubarb]

Since this thread seems about to go kerplunk, I thought I might ask if you (or anyone) believes in randomness, or pure chance, as a form of manifestation for which there exists no possibility of logical organization, interpretation, or comprehension.

In light of one of the other links to The sign of Contradiction in Jesus and the Eucharist, I am very curious:

1. If a given Sign’s significance is known only to God, and by God only – men can make neither heads not tails of it in consensus despite every effort of logic – either we an have accident (a form of randomness) or else that which has yet to be revealed in significance.
2. Could this above wait and see principle be the key to understanding randomness or accident: Not from the subjective side of the logical analysis/organization, but from the objective side of the revealed. Of course, I would presuppose that there existed a technique of analysis capable of recognition as such, and when in such time, the objective randomness finally yielded to that self-same logical sensibility?
3. In which case above, the sign of contradiction works to make comprehensible not the real randomness involved, but the futility of every effort to make logical sense of contradictory appearances.

Ergo,
The significance of contradiction is senseless logic.
The meaning of contradiction is unknown until the sequence of all relevant events is concluded for all time.

What do you mean by the sign of contradiction of Jesus in the Eucharist?

And don’t feel bad about the thread going kerplunk. It’s hard to keep a discussion of pure logic going. The subject is very dry.

 

[IWantGod]

I think that sort of gambit crops up with people who aren’t used to thinking about anything very much. If you could give us a couple of examples we can illustrate better. I find it constantly in linguistics, history, psychology, what biology I understand, politics, geology, economics, etc. Schools teach people to be superficial these days.

I mainly taught myself in recent years but the germ of multi-dimensional thinking was there in my youth. My parents and many teachers had it. It was in quite a lot of books. Sadly it’s less to be seen.

Get them to think around a variety of subjects more. The paradox they themselves have been since they got out of bed ought to make their faces go white! Of course it is possible to critique many “Catholic” foibles but that may not truly interest them.

Eventually they might see that you are not a threat to their health. They are surrounded by enough half-baked people who have labels other than “Catholic”.

Some people just have a habit of mental superficiality, maybe their grandmothers shamed them into doing it or something!

What is henotheistic?