Contradictions: Do They Exist In Your Thinking?

Whatever you may think you know or may ever hope to know, keep the following in mind: contradictions do not exist.  Most people, who exercise some capacity of rational thought, understand that absolute.  Just to be clear about reason; it is our metal faculty which takes our precepts and integrates that information within the entire context of our existing knowledge in a non-contradictory manner.  The issue is, however, when we think we’re facing a contradiction, our default assumption is to eliminate the new information -- that is an error.

Man is capable of error, so when facing a contradiction, wouldn’t it be prudent to challenge what you already know on a rational standard to see if you made an error?  What’s the worst that could happen?  You continue to revalidate your initial assumptions based on rational standards?  What’s the best that could happen?  You discover an error in your thinking and you correct it.  (The value in correcting one’s thinking should be plain).

To guide your thinking, become familiar with the Laws of Thought: Law of Identity, Law of Excluded Middle, and Law of Non-Contradiction.  Why?  Most understand, at least implicitly, the Primacy of Existence; the next logical step is conforming your thoughts to Law of Identity -- i.e., the Supremacy of Reason -- the result being the elimination of any contradictions that may exist in your thinking.

We know through observation, and the Law of Identity as applied to man, that man must use reason to survive -- reason is man’s basic tool of survival qua man.  Man must create material values (route water, plant and grow food, build shelters, etc.) to survive; values do not preexist for him -- he lacks claws for defense, fur or hide for warmth or protection, and preexisting knowledge to serve as instinct.  Any form of creation, from tools to a skyscraper, requires a process of thought – “what is it that I want to achieve, and how do I do it”? 

In determining how do accomplish something, man must determine the identity of certain objects.  In something as simple as planting, for example, he has to understand that the identity of plants obligates certain requirements for the plant to flourish -- the roots must be buried in dirt with plenty of nutrients, the leaves must have access to an adequate amount of photons, and the plant requires access to the right amount of water.  Man must discover how accomplish these tasks and in what order.  None of this can be achieved by a process of non-thinking, and most importantly, none of his thinking can be effective unless he accurately identifies the facts of reality -- i.e. he thinks rationally -- and acts accordingly.

In the spirit of rooting out contradictions, perhaps the most important historical tenant, that is taken as an absolute, which requires challenging on a rational standard, is the principle of otherism -- i.e. altruism.  Why is altruism accepted without question?  Is it because altruism has no rational foundation?  Why is questioning altruism -- i.e. using your rational faculty to challenge it -- considered inhumane?  Isn’t rational thought, as we observed, necessarily a human requirement?  So, thought is obligatory in creating values, but the absence of thought is obligatory in how to dispose of those values? 

And therein lays the contradiction: man’s identity obligates rational thought, while altruism (thus far) obligates its absence -- how can it be obligatory to think and not to think?  If you wish to eliminate every contradiction in your thinking, then altruism either requires a rational foundation or it’s patently false.  Use this opportunity to start your rational journey into the field of ethics, root out the error, and eliminate the contradiction -- whatever it may be. 

Let’s hear what you discovered.  Does a rational foundation exist for altruism or is it doomed as irrational?  You might be wondering what could possibly replace altruism.  Catch a glimpse of it here.

Altruism: The Morality of Logical Fallacies

"Altruism holds that being moral consists in self-sacrificially serving others. Despite its self-destructive nature, altruism is accepted to some extent by almost everyone today. Of course, no one upholds it consistently—at least not for long. Rather, most people accept it as true—and then cheat on it.

"All religionists—Christians, Jews, and Muslims—are altruists. Their holy books demand it. All so-called “Secular Humanists”—Utilitarians, Postmodernists, and Egalitarians—are altruists. Their philosophies demand it.

"From the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim points of view..." [Continued]

Freedom Must Be Earned

No one can escape this undeniable truth: freedom must be earned—if not by you, then by the grace and generosity of your betters.  To earn is to apply intelligent effort to achieve an outcome—which presupposes a mind able to think and use reason in order to distinguish truth from non-truth.  The more valuable the goal then the more worthwhile the intelligent effort is in achieving it.  Freedom being the most valuable thing an individual can earn, it is only fitting that it’s the hardest thing to obtain and maintain.  Through all of recorded history, it wasn’t until the climax of the Enlightenment that a political system was designed and implemented to defend liberty—early attempts were made before, but none as successful as the U.S. Constitution.  Our Constitution is a guard against tyranny; but just like its utter uselessness in the hands of mindless barbarians, who do not even know the reasons for their own traditions, so it is useless in the hands of mindless politicians elected by thoughtless constituents.  It would almost take a mind as great as our framers—and just as thirsty for liberty—to preserve our political system that guards individual freedom.  A mind that is simply acquiescent to the greatness of our framers’ design is not enough to secure liberty for he is defenseless against the senseless—how is he to know the difference?

“If it ain’t broken, then don’t fix it… but how do you go about maintaining it?”  Just like a properly functioning motor needs maintenance from time to time, so does liberty—as Thomas Jefferson once said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”  When a motor ceases to operate or ceases to operate well, it will take an understanding mind to ascertain a solution.  When a man suggests adding water to the fuel tank or mulch to the engine, how would you know that to be wrong unless you know something about the essence and nature of motors?  When a man tells you that the only way to secure liberty is to take it away, how would you know that to be an error unless you know something about the essence and nature of liberty?  There may be a lot of good choices when it comes to properly maintaining a motor, but there are infinitely more bad choices—so it is with preserving liberty—how are you to know the difference?

The first step to maintain our system of liberty is to discover liberty’s true essence, nature and importance—aside from what others tell you.  The second step is to learn the true essence, nature and importance of our constitutional republic’s inner workings—aside from what others tell you.  If you have no interest in discovering the difference or you don’t think that you are capable of understanding it, then you have already surrendered the right to liberty long ago and whatever individual freedoms you do enjoy you owe to men better than yourself; but then again, how are you to know the difference?

To know the difference requires learning the truth and contrasting that knowledge from the thick fog of non-truth.  That particular journey is quite long and perhaps it can never be fully completed; but once significant progress is made, the subsequent steps to preserving liberty and our system will come quite naturally.  I suggest that you start now for your time to act is running out.

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."  — Judge Learned Hand

"Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks -- no form of government can render us secure. To suppose liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.”  — James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 20, 1788

Suggested Reading to Understand Liberty and Our System:

Common Sense, by Thomas Paine

The U.S. Declaration of Independence

The U.S. Constitution

The Federalist papers

Capitalism and Freedom, by Milton Friedman

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand

The Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand

For the New Intellectual, by Ayn Rand

Men in Black, by Mark Levin

End the Fed, by Ron Paul

Meet the System, by Joseph Plummer

Suggested Reading to Understand The Contrast:

The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx

Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, by Ludwig Von Mises

The Road to Serfdom, by F. A. Hayek

Argument Fallacies

I'm not sure where these fallacies were derived from because I received them from a leftist whom I was debating.  He was trying to demonstrate how rational he was.  Of course the rational demonstration wasn't actually a demonstration at all -- he simply dropped his source which explained logical fallacies (bellow), and that was suppose to convince me that he was rational.  I doubt he had any level of understanding that would allow him to make use of such a valuable list, because for the remainder of the argument, I used his own list against his argument and thanked him continuously for his reference.  I'm sure his "use" of the material was not much different than any iteration from a parrot -- the ability to mimic sounds without actually understanding what one is saying. 

Anyway, it's a great tool to demonstrate the utter failure of leftist arguments on any rational standard; the double edge to this though, is that it can also show errors in your own thinking, which is a good thing.

---

The taxonomy of material fallacies is based on that of Aristotle's Organon (Sophistici elenchi). This taxonomy is as follows:

1.  Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization

• Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions
• Example Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.
• Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.
• Example Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.
• Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored).

2.  Converse Fallacy of Accident or Hasty Generalization

• Converse Fallacy of Accident or Hasty Generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule
• Example Argument: Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English.
• Problem: Those one has met are a subset of the entire set. One cannot have met all people.
• Also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter

3.  Irrelevant Conclusion

• Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly.
• Example Argument: Billy believes that war is justifiable, therefore it must be justifiable.
• Problem: Billy can be wrong. (In particular this is an appeal to authority.)
• Special cases:
• purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),
• popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum--appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty.),
• fear (argumentum ad baculum),
• conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam--appeal to authority)
• to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted (argumentum ad misericordiam)
• proving the proposition under dispute without any certain proof (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
• Also called Ignoratio Elenchi, a "red herring"

4.  Affirming the Consequent

• Affirming the Consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Q implies P on the basis that P implies Q
• Example Argument: If people run barefoot, then their feet hurt. Billy's feet hurt. Therefore, Billy ran barefoot.
• Problem: Other things, such as tight sandals, can result in sore feet.
• Example Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
• Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. dew).
• Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q on the basis that P implies Q
• Example Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
• Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for it to be cloudy.

5.  Begging the question

• Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.
• Example Argument: Billy always tells the truth, I know this because he told me so.
• Problem: Billy may be lying.
• Also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle, assuming the answer. Begging the question does not preclude the possibility that the statement in question is correct, but is insufficient proof in and of itself.

6.  Fallacy of False Cause

• Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."
• Example Argument: Taxes fund necessary services such as police, courts, and roads; this demonstrates the necessity of taxation.
• Problem: The fact that taxes currently fund certain services does not prove that taxation is the only means, or the best means, of funding those services. Although, in all fairness, it is a deductive fallacy to claim that the logical possibility of something (funding public services without taxes) implies its practicality, probability or even existence.
• Special cases
• post hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.
• Example Argument: After Billy was vaccinated he developed autism, therefore the vaccine caused his autism.
• Problem: This does not provide any evidence that the vaccine was the cause. The characteristics of autism may generally become noticeable at the age just following the typical age children receive vaccinations.
• cum hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that correlation implies a causal relation.
• Example Argument: More cows die in India in the summer months. More ice cream is consumed in summer months. Therefore, the consumption of ice cream in the summer months is killing Indian cows.
• Problem: It is hotter in the summer, resulting in both the death of cows and the consumption of ice cream.
• Also called causation versus correlation.

7.  Fallacy of many questions

• Fallacy of many questions or loaded question: groups more than one question in the form of a single question
• Example Argument: Is it true that you no longer beat your wife?
• Problem: A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt to beating your wife at some point.
• Also called Plurium Interrogationum and other terms

8.  Straw man

• Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
• Example Person A claims: Sunny days are good.
• Argument Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong.
• Problem: B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made.

9.  Verbal fallacies

• Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words. They are generally classified as follows.

10.  Equivocation

• Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. in a syllogism, the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms

• Example Argument: All heavy things have a great mass; this is heavy fog; therefore this fog has a great mass.
• Problem: Heavy describes more than just weight. In the case of fog, it means that the fog is nearly opaque, not that it has a great mass.

11.  Connotation fallacies

• Connotation fallacies occur when a dysphemistic word is substituted for the speaker's actual quote and used to discredit the argument. It is a form of attribution fallacy.

12.  Argument by innuendo

• Argument by innuendo involves implicitly suggesting a conclusion without stating it outright. For example, a job reference that says a former employee "was never caught taking money from the cash box" implies that the employee was a thief, even though it does not make (or justify) a direct negative statement.

13.  Amphiboly

• Amphiboly is the result of ambiguity of grammatical structure

• Example: The position of the adverb "only" in a sentence starting with "He only said that" results in a sentence in which it is uncertain as to which of the other three words the speaker is intending to modify with the adverb.

14.  Fallacy of Composition

• Fallacy of Composition "From Each to All". Arguing from some property of constituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property. This can be acceptable (i.e., not a fallacy) with certain arguments such as spatial arguments (e.g. "all the parts of the car are in the garage, therefore the car is in the garage")

• Example Argument: All the band members (constituent parts) are highly skilled, therefore the band (composite item) is highly skilled. 
• Problem: The band members may be skilled musicians but lack the ability to function properly as a group.

15.  Division

• Division, the converse of the preceding, arguing from a property of the whole, to each constituent part

• Example Argument: "The university (the whole) is 700 years old, therefore, all the staff (each part) are 700 years old". 
• Problem: Each and every person currently on staff is younger than 700 years. The university continues to exist even when, one by one, each and every person on the original staff leaves and is replaced by a younger person. See Theseus's Ship paradox. 
• Example Argument: "This cereal is part of a nutritious breakfast therefore the cereal is nutritious."
• Problem: Simply because the breakfast taken as a whole is nutritious does not necessarily mean that each part of that breakfast is nutritious.

16.  Proof by verbosity

• Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

17.  Accent

• Accent, which occurs only in speaking and consists of emphasizing the wrong word in a sentence. e.g., "He is a fairly good pianist," according to the emphasis on the words, may imply praise of a beginner's progress or insult of an expert pianist.

18.  Figure of Speech

• Figure of Speech, the confusion between the metaphorical and ordinary uses of a word or phrase.

• Example: The sailor was at home on the sea.
• Problem: The expression 'to be at home' does not literally mean that one's domicile is in that location.

  

19.  Fallacy of Misplaced Concretion

• Fallacy of Misplaced Concretion, identified by Whitehead in his discussion of metaphysics, this refers to the reification of concepts which exist only in discussion.
•  Example 1

Timmy argues:

• Billy is a good tennis player.
• Therefore, Billy is 'good', that is to say a 'morally' good person.
• Here the problem is that the word good has different meanings, which is to say that it is an ambiguous word. In the premise, Timmy says that Billy is good at some particular activity, in this case tennis. In the conclusion, Timmy states that Billy is a morally good person.
• These are clearly two different senses of the word "good". The premise might be true but the conclusion can still be false: Billy might be the best tennis player in the world but a rotten person morally. However, it is not legitimate to infer he is a bad person on the ground there has been a fallacious argument on the part of Timmy. Nothing concerning Billy's moral qualities is to be inferred from the premise.
• Appropriately, since it plays on an ambiguity, this sort of fallacy is called the fallacy of equivocation, that is, equating two incompatible terms or claims.

• Example 2

One posits the argument:  

• Nothing is better than eternal happiness.  
• Eating a hamburger is better than nothing.
• Therefore, eating a hamburger is better than eternal happiness.
• This argument has the appearance of an inference that applies transitivity of the two-placed relation is better than, which in this critique we grant is a valid property. The argument is an example of syntactic ambiguity.
• In fact, the first premise semantically does not predicate an attribute of the subject, as would for instance the assertion, "Nothing is better than eternal happiness." 
• In fact it is semantically equivalent to the following universal quantification:  "Everything fails to be better than eternal happiness." 
• So instantiating this fact with eating a hamburger, it logically follows that  "Eating a hamburger fails to be better than eternal happiness." 
• Note that the premise "A hamburger is better than nothing" does not provide anything to this argument.
• This fact really means something such as, "Eating a hamburger is better than eating nothing at all." 
• Thus this is a fallacy of equivocation.

20.  Deductive fallacy

Main article: Deductive fallacy In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.

However, it is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies as well as formal fallacies.

The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument (e.g., appeal to authority), but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.