The universe is an ever-changing process, and the physical world is always moving, flowing, and fluctuating, in a state of constant change.
In this endless process of change, life becomes death, death becomes life, and everything gives way to something else.
Nothing is set in stone, and with enough time, everything will eventually become their opposite, which means that everything is constant"becomes"。
This state of eternal change not only defines"Outside"also defines language, because everything, including language, is part of the material world.
Protagoras noted a paradox of language:"There is no life, and there is no end to death"Although the material world is always flowing and changing, language gives the false illusion that the world is not flowing, but stable.
People name the process of changing, blending, and transforming"Birth", but this nomenclature masks the dynamic process of generation and decay.
The habit of language creating the illusion of stability in a phenomenon of fundamental instability is flawed, but there is no alternative.
Anti-logic offers an alternative to the illusion of fixed statements about the world.
These statements imply the eternity of things, which are forever in flux and flow.
Anti-logic breaks this fixity and persistence by making statements unstable through contradictions.
Any given contradiction can be refuted in itself, which means that it is impossible for any contradiction to be completely or permanently refuted.
Through the permanent instability of anti-logic, language can match the world.
Protagoras's philosophy is summarized as two paradoxical fragments, which in the form of a true anti-logic, in each question, it is impossible to have two opposing arguments and contradictions.
Antilogic allows language to participate in a rapidly changing universe without attempting to generate persistent but misleading knowledge through statements.
Sophists such as Protagoras used anti-logical rhetoric to acknowledge uncertainty and avoid the illusion of truth.
In ancient Greece, persuasive orators were highly regarded because it was believed to bring fame and fortune.
In Syracuse, 2,500 years ago, Koraks was a well-known teacher of rhetoric.
Tissias is said to be the most gifted student of Koraks. Corax agreed to teach Tisias, and they agreed that when Tisias won the first case, he would be paid.
Tisias progressed quickly in his studies, and Corax then demanded that Tisias pay the fees they had agreed upon.
However, Tisias refused to pay the fees before winning the first case, as they had originally agreed.
As a result, Corax took Tisias to court, demanding payment.
At trial, Koraks presented an impressive case.
He argues that he should be paid regardless of whether he wins or loses the case.
If he wins, he deserves to be paid because he wins.
Even if he loses, he deserves to be paid, as Tisias had promised to be paid when he won his first lawsuit.
Therefore, Koraks should be honorariated.
The jury was overwhelmed by this argument, and even though the verdict was reversed, Corax prevailed.
But the trial was not over, and when Tisias spoke, he refuted Corax point by point.
He said: "Whether I win or am defeated, I am not obligated to pay Korax a gratuity.
If I win, because I won; If I lose, according to the terms of the contract, if I win the first case, I pay the honorarium, but if I lose, I don't pay.
It is worth noting that he used the same argument without making any changes.
The jurors didn't know how to reach a verdict, and Colacs and Tisias presented diametrically opposed arguments that were exactly equal in strength and credibility.
Each argument perfectly counters the other, and the conflict cannot be resolved.
Due to the equal strength of the arguments of both sides, the judges fell into suspense and confusion.
So, they kicked both sides out of the courtroom and exclaimed: Bad crows are bad ass.
Their intention is not to make a weak argument appear strong, but to deliberately make every position equally weak.
In the history of ideas, the practice of putting two arguments together in such a way that neither one can defeat the other is called'Anti-logic'。
Antilogic is a form of contradiction that makes people have opposite views about an event or phenomenon at the same time, without any way to resolve the contradictory views they are trapped in.
The sophists of Athens in the 5th century BC were known for being adept at making weak arguments seem stronger than strong ones.
Since Plato, this technique has been defined as:"Make weak arguments stronger"The ability to make bad arguments defeat good arguments.
Aristotle describes the argument of Corax and Tisias as two options that seem likely, but only one is really possible.
To treat them as equally possible is to make weaker arguments seem more justified.
There are two positions in this case, one stronger or more true than the other.
Due to the anti-logic, we can't be sure which one is correct.
When we can't tell the truth from the false, it is likely that a weaker argument is expressed as a stronger one.
There is another possible explanation for the anti-logic of the sophist, the purpose of which is not to make weak arguments appear strong, but to deliberately weaken each position to the extent that it is contrary to it.
This makes it impossible to fully believe that a position is infallible.
Therefore, we cannot fully trust one thing, such as whether Tisias should pay the fee or not, but rather suspend judgment.
Why hold off on judgment, there are scientific reasons behind the anti-logic of the sophists.
Despite the fact that from"Sophistry"In the sense of the word, they don't have a good reputation in the history of ideas, but they are actually a kind of scientist.
In the past, a pause in judgment would have upset judges, as it is today.
This is exactly what Socrates, as well as Plato and Aristotle, questioned about antilogic.
If everything is always in motion and language can't hold anything in place, then we can never really understand anything.
Anti-logic can make a subject look beautiful and opposite, moral and opposite, just and opposite, but it also makes real knowledge forever out of reach.
Anti-logic leads us to believe that an argument may be true on one point and false at another, making facts and arguments unstable and unreliable.
Nothing is stable or reliable, either facts or arguments, everything is undulating like water in the tides and never stops at any point.
How can anything about the world be known with certainty and certainty?
According to Plato, Protagoras's doctrine holds that contradictions are impossible and ubiquitous, meaning that no statement is false and all statements are true at the same time.
And describe the doctrine of Protagoras as a ridiculous claim, ie"It is equally possible to affirm and deny anything"。
The first sentence of Aristotle's Metaphysics captures man's unwavering thirst for knowledge:"Human beings are inherently knowledge-seeking"。
Anti-logic used to be a discipline that suspended judgment, but in the process of developing it ran counter to the idea of truth.
Today, people have lost the way of thinking captured by anti-logic, and the suspension of judgment goes against some of our deepest instincts that our minds have deliberately cultivated.
It upsets and frustrates us, like the judge in the case of Korax's prosecution.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, as well as tradition, all oppose anti-logic because it proposes another concept of knowledge that allows doubt, uncertainty, and suspension of judgment.
This obscures the path to lasting and absolute truth that they have pursued tirelessly.
Protagoras understands that deliberately cultivating the skill of not knowing and suspending judgment requires skill and expertise.
This requires the use of straightforward language that presents the information logically. The purpose of anti-logic is to provide a way out of the tendency to cling to temporary views and call them definite truths, and the tendency to cling to absolute knowledge that does not correspond to reality.
Plato quoted Protagoras as saying that there are those who, in the primitive stage, call what we see"True", but his position is that one thing is better than the other, but not more real.
This is not sophistry, but a cultivation that does not succumb to our natural desire for certainty.
The purpose of anti-logic is to break down strong notions of truth because they do not correspond to reality.
Its purpose is to get rid of dogmatic thinking and provide a path free from the human thirst for absolute knowledge.
I don't know"It is a hard-won practice that can substitute for our natural tendency to cling to incorrect beliefs and opinions in the name of truth.