The principle of excluded middle states that for every proposition, either the proposition or its negation is true. That means that the opposite of a false statement is a true statement.
Oftentimes, we encounter a proposition that is so far off the mark that even its opposite is not true. Hence we say that it is “not even wrong”.
Not Good Enough for You
Fellows write to me, explaining that there is no organization good enough for them. Usually it is the Catholic Church which has lost her way … not that he has lost his way. Such types are incapable of understanding the distinction between a Collective and a Singular entity. Instead, they judge the collective by its visible members.
Physicist on Eternity of the World
A physicist, Stephen Barr, asserted that Bonaventure was incorrect to claim that the eternity of the world could be disproved by logic and metaphysics. He gave as the counter-example the set of positive and negative integers. Of course, in the timeline sequence he had in mind, that set is not well-ordered. But time, by its nature, is ordered. This is how:
- Present. What is happening now.
- Future. Possibilities not yet actualized.
- Past. Possibilities which have been actualized.
Since there cannot be an actual infinity, Bonaventure was correct in denying that the past could extend back to negative infinity.
Black Holes
If you are on the spectrum you may miss the irony:
Team takes colour picture of a black hole.
Fall of Rome
Neopagans tend to claim that Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire. Of course, the Germanic tribes that invaded the Empire – in several directions and times – were also Christians. Alaric, when he entered Rome, protected the churches from destruction. Although the Arian and Catholic faiths nominally differed, they used the same prayers and rituals. Eventually, they merged into each other.
Moreover, Christianity took over voluntarily: Clovis in France, King Ethellbert in England, even Iceland adopted it voluntarily. The current decline of Europe – if you choose to see it that way – is due to the return of paganism.
Three Political Worldviews
There are three basic worldviews that determine one’s political perspective. For a proper understanding, it is necessary to evaluate things in terms of principles not specific policies. Specifically, it is not informative to say that such and such a policy is socialism, etc. Here are the three worldviews:
Traditional: Social problems result from defects in human persons. Hence, improvement requires that people learn to moderate their own behaviour.
Liberalism: Social problems are solved by political organization. But we can see that high sounding ideas like free speech, voting rights, etc. are failing to mediate competing interests in society.
Socialism: Social problems are responsible for personal problems. Implementing certain social programs will improve the human race. But removing personal responsibility seems to make things worse.
The Idiot in the Room
Suppose a mad scientist proposed this challenge to you. You will enter a room with me in it and you have 10 minutes to determine who is the idiot in the room. To make it interesting, you will win $1000 if you get it right, just enough to pay for your mother’s life saving surgery. Assuming your desire to save your mother’s life exceeds your pride, who would you choose?
This is a typical conversation I get, either in the comments or by email. A fellow poses a question A. I assume it is a sincere question. Unfortunately, question A is so ill-posed that it is not even wrong. So I respond with B. If you ever followed a Platonic dialog, he should take B into account and respond with C. Unfortunately, such simple minds assume that I am the idiot in the room; thus, they repeat question A and tell me that I must not have understood it. Here is another law of metaphysics:
An incoherent statement cannot be understood.
Content of One’s Character
We hear this claim over and over lately: We should be judged by the content of our character, not by the colour of our skin.
Are you serious? Do you really want to be judged by the content of your character? Maybe we should channel Anubis to grade everyone’s character.
Algebra and Elementary Education
As a Teaching Assistant, I had the misfortune to teach algebra to Elementary School Majors. Many were taking the class for the second or third time. No matter how I tried, I was barely effective in many cases. An attractive co-ed came to my office and told me that she would do anything to pass the class. She repeated it, this time emphasizing ANYTHING. My innocent mind was shocked, so I decided to decline her offer. Nevertheless, I cut her some slack at the end; after all, is is the thought that counts.
The Obnoxious Convert
Several years ago there was an argumentative, obnoxious convert on facebook. He unfriended me for not being Catholic enough. Recently, I bumped into him again. He is now a nihilist, but still argumentative and obnoxious. That makes me the excluded middle.
Not even wrong news
Things heard in the news this week.
80%: I was watching the second game of a best 2 out of 3 women’s softball tournament. The announcer asserted that in the history of the tournament, the winner of the first game won the serious 80% of the time. Of course, by the laws of probability, assuming the teams are equally matched, the loser of the first game has just a 25% chance of winning the series. No surprising insight here.
Pissing: A female analyst was embarrassed to use the phrase “pissing in the wind”, so she spelled out the p word. I did not object to the vulgarity of the phrase, but rather to the fact that she was not speaking from personal experience.
Jane Austen: Critical Race Theory classes are banning American authors including Jane Austen.
Stereotype: A stereotype is a false generalization of a group. So a Texas newspaper declined to identify the race of the perpetrator of a recent mass shooting, on the grounds that it would perpetuate a stereotype. So a true statement can somehow prove a false stereotype.
Becoming Popular
I’ve noticed that blogs that post a simple post on a single topic get more traction than this one. So perhaps, I should post one of these topics daily for a week, instead of a weekly post with several topics.
I was merely offering you the opportunity to clarify done of your rather confused and contradictory ideas. Is that what you mean by “debate”? You have quite a way with words.
I’m here to help you out, Jal, not invite you to a debate for which you have demonstrated no competence.
Just a month ago, we showed that time is a product of manifestation, not of Being. But you must have been busy that day. Yes, I deny what you said, otherwise time would go back to negative infinity. So this is the end of this discussion, although I’m impressed that you read McTaggart’s book … or did you really???
See Principle of Manifestation
It’s funny that you believe the Roman Church exists outside time but that being itself does not.
Anyway:
If God exists outside time, how is it possible for him to be the non-reciprocal cause of the universe, given that a cause, to be non-reciprocal in relation to its effect, must precede it in time? Or do you deny this?
I didn’t know that McTaggart is still alive. That would prove his argument.
Do you know offhand what is God’s cardinality?
If there cannot be an actual infinity, there goes God.
Have you read McTaggart’s The Nature of Existence? In it he argues (1) that time is unreal, and (2) that the infinite divisible of substance implies that only minds are real.
‘You will enter a room with me in it and you have 10 minutes to determine who is the idiot in the room.’
While an ignorant person is perhaps wealthier in the quantity of idiocy, he is nonetheless cautious when it comes to matters of self-preservation. The intellectual on the other hand, is much more persistent and fanatical in his delusions. If I were to take this challenge, I would ask the intellectual ‘Sir, do you believe that reason has any say in the organization of society?’ and without waiting for his reply, grab the stash of money and go pay the hospital bill.