Dialetheism

[bezdomni]

I have been reading into Dialetheism lately, skimming through some Graham Preist and such...I think I have some affinity for paraconsistant logic.

I think the problem with Hegelian dialectics is the explosion factor... since all contradictions are true, then everything must be true...which is not only logically abhorrent, but simply counterintuitive.

However, I think some contradictions are true. Mainly, the contradiction between class material interests. I also think there are some other contradictions that are true as well (manual vs mental labour..etc)...but I refuse to believe that all contradictions are true.

I am surprised that Dialetheism is not terribly popular among philosophers, nor has it really been adopted by any other Marxists, as far as I'm aware.

My main question is: Why?

Just a few intros to Dialetheism and paraconsistent logic for people who are uncertain as to what it is:

Wikipedia: Paraconsistent logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic#Criticism)

Allaboutall.com: Dialetheism (http://www.allaboutall.info/article/Dialetheism)

Stanford.edu: Dialetheism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

We have actually debated this CPA.

First conclusion: Priest has to alter the meaning of negation in order to make his system 'work' (so, for example he 'solves' the paradoxes by not doing so).

Second, Priest's contradictions are not dialectical but formal (and they are 'true', once you change the rules of classical logic).

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...pic=48214&st=50 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48214&st=50)

But you should know, it was your thread!


I am surprised that Dialetheism is not terribly popular among philosophers, nor has it really been adopted by any other Marxists, as far as I'm aware.

It is not popular since it relies on ideas from Hegel, who, thank goodness, is still an unacceptable figure to most analytic philosophers (who dominate UK, US, Australian, Scandinavian universities).

And Marxists (and Hegelians) in general have not bothered with his work since you need to know an awful lot of logic to be able to follow his arguments (that rules about 95% out!), and those who cross that hurdle do not think his contradictions are dialectical.

Having read so much on one side, you should now read the take-down:

Goldstein, L. (1992), ‘Smooth And Rough Logic’, Philosophical Investigations I 15, pp.93-110.

Slater, H. (2004): 'Dialetheias are Mental Confusions' translated into Romanian by D. Gheorghiu, editor, with I. Lucica, Ex Falso Quodlibet, Editura Tehnica, Bucharest.

[If you can get hold of a copy! I obtained mine from the author himself.]

And check out the short disproof of Priest's analysis of Disjunctive Syllogism here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dialetheism

[I will be devoting an Essay to Priest's work, later next year, all being well.]

You can find a long and detailed dissection of the best article I have so far read on the topic of dialectical contradictions here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm#Several detailed



I think some contradictions are true. Mainly, the contradiction between class material interests.

That is not even a contradiction (or if it is you need to explain why it is....).

[bezdomni]

We have actually debated this CPA.
I'd call it more of a discussion, since I really didn't know too much about it in that last thread.


But you should know, it was your thread!
Yeah, I remembered it...but I thought know that I actually know a bit about it, it deserved its own thread.


First conclusion: Priest has to alter the meaning of negation in order to make his system 'work' (so, for example he 'solves' the paradoxes by not doing so).
This is the argument that dialetheist "negations" are actually "subcontrary forming operators" (pulled from the square of opposition), no?

If a person is standing with one foot in a room and the other foot out of the room, aren't they both inside and outside of the room at the same time. Isn't the "contradiction" between their status of being inside and outside the room at the same time a true one?


Second, Priest's contradictions are not dialectical but formal (and they are 'true', once you change the rules of classical logic).
It seems that it is a dialectical contradiction that makes sense in the realm of formal logic...which is exactly the point. Dialectics, as you and several others have pointed out, betrays the rules of formal logic too frequently. However, some contradictions are true and can be proven through formal logic..



Having read so much on one side, you should now read the take-down:
Will do.


That is not even a contradiction (or if it is you need to explain why it is....).
The proletariat class exists and the bourgeois class exists. Their material interests are obviously diametrically opposed...which is the fundamental concept behind class struggle. The idea that the proletariat class will revolt against the bourgeoisie is based upon the idea that contradictions (at least in matters of class material interest) are not self-sustaining and will eventually end up in the victory of one class over another.

As long as two separate classes exist, there is class struggle...which is the manifestation of the contradiction between class interests.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CPA (thanks for those comments, it's nice to see a dialectician make some attempt to defend his beliefs, and not rely on mere dogma!):


This is the argument that dialetheist "negations" are actually "subcontrary forming operators" (pulled from the square of opposition), no?

No, it is based on the observation that classical negation is a truth functional operator that maps propostions onto their negations, such that if the first is true the second is false, and vice versa, and that their conjunction is always false.

Naturally, it is up to theorists to alter any rules they like, but if they do, then their claims to have 'solved' a problem automatically come under suspicion (a bit like if you 'solved' your financial problems by redefining the word 'overdraft' to mean 'I have $10 million in the bank').


If a person is standing with one foot in a room and the other foot out of the room, aren't they both inside and outside of the room at the same time. Isn't the "contradiction" between their status of being inside and outside the room at the same time a true one?

This is based on an ambiguity in language not reality, so it cannot be a 'real' contradiction. Once criteria are set up to decide what we mean by 'in the room' the ambiguity is cleared and the alleged 'contradiction' vanishes.

Of course, you can set up criteria that leave the alleged 'contradiction' in place, but that will be a conventionalist 'solution' and not reflective of nature (as indeed the one above is).


It seems that it is a dialectical contradiction that makes sense in the realm of formal logic...which is exactly the point. Dialectics, as you and several others have pointed out, betrays the rules of formal logic too frequently. However, some contradictions are true and can be proven through formal logic..

Well, I didn't really understand what you were saying here, but if a contradiction can be 'proved' in logic, that proof is either invalid, or if valid, then one of the premises must have been false, and the alleged proof is not a proof.

Once again, you can change the rules as you see fit, but that would be to adopt a new convention, changing the meaning of 'proof' to suit your metaphysical preconceptions, making your theory eminently 'subjective'.

And my claim about Priest's 'contradictions' not being dialectical is not my view (although I agree with it -- accept I do not understand what a 'dialectical' contradiction is, and have yet to read anything that makes this terminally obscure notion comprehensible -- see that link to my site), but one expressed by dialecticians themselves (see Jim Farr's comments on this in that earlier thread).


The proletariat class exists and the bourgeois class exists. Their material interests are obviously diametrically opposed...which is the fundamental concept behind class struggle. The idea that the proletariat class will revolt against the bourgeoisie is based upon the idea that contradictions (at least in matters of class material interest) are not self-sustaining and will eventually end up in the victory of one class over another.

I agree with that 100%, but why is it a contradiction?


As long as two separate classes exist, there is class struggle...which is the manifestation of the contradiction between class interests.

Well this is just to label it so, but it does not explain why this word is applicable here.

Why you would want to make this hermetic idea work is a mystery to me -- a bit like Roman Catholic theologians who, to this day, and only because of tradition, still try to make the word 'Trinity' comprehensible (the 'Trinity' has the same ideological roots as Hermeticism).

This attempt to do a priori superscience by juggling with a few words is eminently traditional, and part of the ruling ideas that have always ruled -- boss class ideology.

Give up, you will always fail if you want to be consistent with materialism.