Dialetheism and the Problem of the Missing Difference

Q2 Arts and Humanities
SATS Pub Date : 2018-11-27 DOI:10.1515/sats-2017-0012
G. S. Moss
{"title":"Dialetheism and the Problem of the Missing Difference","authors":"G. S. Moss","doi":"10.1515/sats-2017-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract During the past few decades, Graham Priest has advocated for Dialetheism, the controversial position that some contradictions are true. Dialetheism entails that the Law of Non-Contradiction fails. In recent decades the philosophical community has begun to recognize the significant challenge posed by Priest’s arguments. Priest has primarily appealed to paradoxes of self-reference, such as the Liar Paradox, to support his position. Following Priest’s approach, I offer another argument for Dialetheism, which appeals to a self-referential paradox that has been more or less ignored in the philosophical literature on the subject: the paradox of the missing difference. When we reflect on the question ‘what is a concept?’ from the perspective of a classical model of conceptual analysis, we arrive at the paradox of the missing difference. Although contradictions may be improbable, when we reflect on the question ‘how is the domain of concepts possible?’ we are led to a startling principle: without dialetheia any theory concerning concept formation (from a classical perspective on concepts) would be impossible. Dialetheism is a necessary condition for the existence of a domain of concepts in general. As a result, Dialetheism may even be more central to philosophical reflection than even dialetheists themselves have recognized.","PeriodicalId":38824,"journal":{"name":"SATS","volume":"5 1","pages":"110 - 89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SATS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sats-2017-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract During the past few decades, Graham Priest has advocated for Dialetheism, the controversial position that some contradictions are true. Dialetheism entails that the Law of Non-Contradiction fails. In recent decades the philosophical community has begun to recognize the significant challenge posed by Priest’s arguments. Priest has primarily appealed to paradoxes of self-reference, such as the Liar Paradox, to support his position. Following Priest’s approach, I offer another argument for Dialetheism, which appeals to a self-referential paradox that has been more or less ignored in the philosophical literature on the subject: the paradox of the missing difference. When we reflect on the question ‘what is a concept?’ from the perspective of a classical model of conceptual analysis, we arrive at the paradox of the missing difference. Although contradictions may be improbable, when we reflect on the question ‘how is the domain of concepts possible?’ we are led to a startling principle: without dialetheia any theory concerning concept formation (from a classical perspective on concepts) would be impossible. Dialetheism is a necessary condition for the existence of a domain of concepts in general. As a result, Dialetheism may even be more central to philosophical reflection than even dialetheists themselves have recognized.
辩证论与缺失差异问题
在过去的几十年里,格雷厄姆·普里斯特一直倡导双重神论,这是一种有争议的立场,认为某些矛盾是正确的。辩证法意味着非矛盾律失效。近几十年来,哲学界已经开始认识到普里斯特的论点所带来的重大挑战。普里斯特主要求助于自我参照的悖论,比如说谎者悖论,来支持他的立场。遵循普里斯特的方法,我提出了另一种对双重神论的论证,它诉诸于一个自我指涉的悖论,这个悖论在关于这个主题的哲学文献中或多或少被忽视了:缺失差异的悖论。当我们思考“什么是概念?”从一个经典的概念分析模型的角度来看,我们得出了缺失差异的悖论。虽然矛盾可能是不可能的,但当我们思考“概念领域如何成为可能”这个问题时?我们被引向一个惊人的原则:没有辩证论,任何关于概念形成的理论(从概念的经典视角)都是不可能的。一般而言,辩证性是一个概念域存在的必要条件。因此,在哲学反思中,双面神论甚至可能比双面神论者自己所认识到的更为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
SATS
SATS Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信