People always recall their past wrong judgments as basically correct, even experts and scholars are no exception.- Kun Peng's theory
Volume IV, Chapter 4 (vii).
Original:
Again, there are those who judge a thing, or the cloud "as it is" or the cloud as "as it is," and another person judges a thing as "it is and is not as it is";
Whose judgment is right and whose judgment is wrong?
Explanation:
This is the third proof: the other party's theory negates the law of exclusion.
What is the law of exclusion?
It refers to the fact that in the same thinking process, two ideas cannot be the same or false, and one of them must be true, that is, "either a or not a", which is one of the basic laws of formal logic.
The explanation in the encyclopedia is very good, and Kun Penglun excerpts it:
The law of exclusion requires that propositions (contradictory relations, opposition relations) that cannot be the same and false cannot be denied at the same time in the same thinking process.
For example, if there is an open space where crops can be planted, A and B discuss what crops should be planted on this land.
A said one moment that corn should be planted, and another said that corn should not be planted.
In response to A's statement, B said, "I disagree with both of your opinions. ”
Here, A's argument violates the requirements of the law of contradiction and makes the mistake of "self-contradiction", because he affirms the two contradictory judgments that "corn should be planted" and "corn should not be planted" in this vacant land.
In response to A's argument, B's argument violates the requirement of the exclusionary law, because the exclusionary law holds that two contradictory judgments cannot be false together, and B happens to conclude that both judgments are false.
In other words, either corn should be planted on this field, or corn should not be planted, and there must be one or the other.
Another example: Example 1: Someone proposes to either go to Lao Li or Lao Wang, I think it is inappropriate. If Lao Li and Lao Wang don't go, I don't approve of it.
Example 2: When discussing whether the defendant has committed the crime of **, someone says: "It cannot be considered that the defendant has committed the crime of **, nor can it be considered that the defendant has not committed the crime of **." I feel that the defendant is guilty of a crime that is somewhere between ** and non**. ”
Example 3: When discussing whether smoking should be banned, Person A said, "I am not in favor of banning smoking, tobacco is an important industry in the country. But ......After all, smoking is harmful to people's health, so I don't agree with the idea of not banning smoking. ”
Example: Example 1: Some crimes are intentional.
Example 2: Some crimes are not intentional.
Example 3: It is not that some crimes are intentional.
Example 4: Both A and B are at the scene of the crime.
Example 5: If A is at the scene of the crime, then B is not at the scene of the crime.
Example 6: You can pick up your order any day from Monday to Friday.
Example 7: You can pick up your order from Friday to Sunday.
The law of exclusion requires that the propositions in Examples 1 and 2, 1 and 3, 4 and 5, 6 and 7 cannot be negated at the same time.
The logical error of violating the law of exclusion is ambiguity, and the above examples negate two contradictory statements about the same situation, so that the idea expressed is ambiguous and ambiguous.
The law of exclusion prohibits the simultaneous denial of two ideas that have a contradictory relationship or an opposing relationship, because they cannot be the same or false, and one of them must be true.
If two opposing ideas cannot be denied at the same time, it is a misuse of the law of exclusion.
This error can be called the "black and white" fallacy.
Clearly, there are alternatives to the opposing concepts of black and white.
Getting back to the point, Aristotle proposed:
There is a judgment about a thing, or it is so, or it is not, and there is a judgment of a thing that is both so and not so;
So, whose judgment is right and whose judgment is wrong?
Original:
If those two people are right, then where do they look for existing things of such a nature?
Explanation:
If those who think that both can be right, then where do they look for existing things of this nature?
Original:
If he is not right, it is still better to compare the one who distinguishes things as both "yes" and "no", and even if he is not right, you cannot be considered wrong.
Explanation:
If he is wrong, he is more correct than he is to divide things into "yes" and "no".
Even if it is not right, it cannot be counted as wrong, because the being already has a definite nature, which will be true and cannot be unreal at the same time.
Original:
However, there is no distinction between the true and the false, and the person who falls in such a state cannot actually say and will not say anything that can be understood;
Because he says "yes" and "no" at the same time, he does not judge everything, but is chaotic, thoughtful and thoughtless, how is such a person different from plants and trees?
Explanation:
However, a person who thinks that there is no difference between everything and that truth and falsehood are mixed up can neither speak nor say anything, because he says these things at the same time and says that he is not these, and if he thinks nothing, thinks and does not think the same, then what is the difference between him and a plant?
Aristotle, by the third proof, pointed out that if our opponent denies the law of contradiction and admits that contradictory things are compatible, then he must also deny the law of exclusion, i.e., that a contradictory argument can be false at the same time, because if a is a person and a non-person, it will be neither human nor non-human, and this is true whether we treat it as a proposition that contradicts the first two propositions, or as a proposition that contradicts the preceding one, in which case there is no certainty of thought to speak of.
This article was originally written by "Kun Peng Theory" and is rejected without consent**
Please pay attention to this Baijia number, Kun Peng has been established since the end of 2015, the founders are Feng Lipeng, Teng Dapeng, including Baijia, Toutiao, Xueqiu, Sohu, NetEase, Sina and many other well-known ** or self-** platforms of special experts or special columnists, has published more than 6,000 original articles and Q&A.