Some would probably argue that that is only a matter of perception, little reptile. 
All are funny in their own way… humour can be found in numerous avenues of discourse and rapport.
There’s a law of logic called “the law of non-contradiction”. The law says that something can’t be both X and not-X at the same time. It’s really a law of basic rationality. I’m willing to throw that law away entirely, if you could perhaps come up with an example of one and the same claim that was both true and false at the same time.
One type of example comes from something being true only by some degree. For example: a person with half a head of (really thinning) hair. Is he bald? Well, sort of yes, and sort of no. —It’s not really true that he’s bald, but it’s not really false that he’s not bald.
But I don’t think this type of example (of truth in degrees) shows that the law of non-contradiction is a bad law… it only shows that there is some vagueness in our concept of baldness, for example. Once we get clearer about what we mean by bald, we’ll see that the law is upheld.
Am I flowing, now?
Von the law of non contradiction can only determine whether a statement is analytically true or not, or internally consistent, or that one proposition can’t be if the other one is. It ignores the entire concept of context and therefore isn’t a good measure of whether or not we should move or act on information. More so, it’s a tool for clarifying language.
Bruah, it doesn’t ignore context or do any of that. All it says is that, when you contradict yourself, something you’ve said is wrong. It’s a pretty important rule for dealing with busted up fools who contradict themselves. See Socrates, dawg.
No no no no no.
Smears, some people have a great deal of trouble understanding the difference between a perspective, and the consequences of that perspective. They confuse and muddle the two. (shrug) 
Bruahs, get yourselves some learning…
- The law of non-contradiction has nothing to do with whether a statement is analytically true. (A) It has nothing the fuck to do with any one single statement, unless the statement can be broken into two separate statements which contradict each other. And (B) the law applies only after a meaning has been given to the component terms, and thus it has nothing the fuck to do with analyzing language.
- The law of non-contradiction has nothing to do with whether a statement is internally consistent. (A) It has nothing the fuck to do with any one single statement, unless the statement can be broken into two separate statements which contradict each other. And (B) the law applies only after a meaning has been given to the component terms, and thus it has nothing the fuck to do with analyzing language.
- The law of non-contradiction does not fucking ignore context----it states that contradictory claims cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. It’s only via the context that you have a fucking contradiction.
- The law of non-contradiction is not a tool for clarifying language, because it has nothing the fuck to do with analyzing what words mean. It applies only after a meaning has been given to the words.
- The law of non-contradiction has nothing the fuck to do with “understanding the ifference between perspective and consequences of a perspective”, or whatever the fuck that means.
I AM A RIVER TO MY PEOPLE.
Mo, I really didn’t expect you to get it. You prove that you really don’t understand analytic philosophy. One follows the logic, not meaning or context.
Assigning meaning to the components IS analyzing language and occurs after the logic is proven or falsified.
Uhh… yes. The law of non-contradiction is a tool used to examine the logic sequence for error. As you say, it is a consequence that is employed AFTER examining the logic construct. Soooo… one more time. There are logical constructs and there are the consequences (assigning meaning) of those constructs. Confusing the two happens all the time - even among “learned logicians”. Sometimes especially among logicians.
No, I get it brethren, trust me. See below. But also recognize that analytic philosophy is absolutely about the analysis of meaning of terms as a way of solving philosophical problems. That’s pretty much why analytic philosophy is called “Analytic Philosophy”----because of the rise to prominence of the method of conceptual analysis.
In formal logic, you can examine the structure of an argument independently of the meaning of the words by exchanging symboles (like P or Q, X or Y) for actual concepts. But the moment you insert concepts into those placeholders, the actual logical structure of the argument can change. That’s partly why what you find in philosophy is that it is often done informally----i.e., with words and concepts that mean something in the real world.
Not just “the logic sequence”----I can use the law on things you say, informally. If you tell me that you ate an apple this afternoon and that you didn’t eat an apple the same afternoon----then I’ll use the law to recognize that you don’t quite know what you’re talking about. That’s pretty much the only thing that Socrates ever did----and he’s famous for it. Imagine that.
Wouldn’t the law be part of the “logic construct”? And applying that law yields the consequence [ex. that both of the contradictory statements can’t be true].
It certainly can be, but isn’t absolutely necessary as LOGIC. But yes, even the smallest change in perspective can yield different applications which may include changing the logic sequences to avoid contradictions or to provide “meaning” depending on your desired outcomes. Logicians are famous for manipulating terms that affect the truth or falsity of any particular application of logic. And I would certainly agree that assigning meaning is all that allows logic to be useful in real world applications. Logic by itself is… to quote the infamous lady jane, meaningless. 
So the constant shifting back and forth between the logic and the check tool of the law is a constant. Finally, if there is to be understanding, one must see the difference between the tools, since both are abstractions looking for “truth”. Glossing over one or the other is very common and I think that is what Smears was trying to say. He can correct me if I’m wrong.
I’m saying that everyone knows that if you look at something long enough that contradictions are kind of at the base of everything. So throwing out things on the basis of contradiction is good for thought experiments and for clarifying language, but in most practical instances it’s just silly. A contradiction in language doesn’t imply, “wrongness” on it’s own.
Does too! If I decide it’s wrong, then it is wrong. Errr… as long as it’s logical… :-"
Yes as long as it’s not illogical then yeah it’s like science and it’s right…or something.
Yay science.
Bruah, have you been reading Australia’s leading erotic poet, colin leslie dean?
yes. red turgid and spiked.
That’s how I like my Science.
You mean Your science fiction