II. The Paradox

:twisted:

For any method of acquiring information and method of reasoning that we devise, we have to start with some assumption (and regardless of how “obvious” it may seem, it's still an assumption, for whatever “obviousness” an assumption appears to retain may really be only a reflection of how we may be conditioned and programmed to think). We do this because we have to start somewhere. In many of these systems (largely a byproduct of the “Western” thought paradigm), and for good reason (such as consistency), contradictions are to be avoided and are generally seen as erroneous. But any system we devise has limits, and sometimes those limits can be seen by paradoxes about the system, within the system, or paradoxical information generated by the system. It usually is at some bare-bones, fundamental root underpinning the system, and often (but not always) with some sort of regard of self-reference. Often times, a paradox is a sort of contradiction, but a very special kind; one that is “true” or workable, operable or understandable, despite “breaking the rules.” And sometimes, it's simply an error.

To make things a little bit easier, let's have a definition for paradox that we will work with when it comes up: A statement, observation, situation, or series of such, that contradict or seem to contradict, but can still be seen (upon reframing, further inspection or analysis, etc) as well-founded, true, valid, or sound. I will use the terms “workable” and “well-founded,” instead of “true,” “valid,” or “sound,” as the latter have very explicit definitions in the field and study of logic, and as such, have very deeply entrenched connotations and associations that can make the understanding of the ideas to be shared fraught with mental gymnastics that can take the fun out of this. Also, since the core of this is about skepticism, it seems it would be an error and antithetical for me to make too many assertions related to the idea of “truth.” Which brings us to considering that some paradoxes are such because they occupy a state of being both “true” and “false.” [“This sentence is false.”]

Often paradoxes are also attributed to statements, observations, situations or a series of such that is ironic or defies expectation despite being “true.” In some sense, we seem to be able to say this about almost all paradoxes.

The information that we gather has it's value to us as in some way being “well-founded” or “workable,” until a time comes that it becomes obsolete.

To make things a bit easier still, consider being willing to allow the boundaries to become more pliable and mutable of whatever systems of reasoning that you may be working with. For example, if you are very versed in logic, allowing for the idea that perhaps there are some situations which reach outside the confines of the logical system, and so is missing elements for there to be a perfect mapping from the situation in question with the logical system being used. Or with regard to empiricism, that some physical phenomena may escape description and understanding through a system predicated on studying this very broad class of ontological phenomena. Perhaps allowing multiplicity in certain explanations (like light being both a wave and particle, effectively occupying two states).

Sometimes it appears that paradoxes arise from us because in fields for gathering information, we blend different fields together to make new fields for understanding or to propel one or another forward. The paradoxes occur at the crux where the different fields don't “fit together well.” It can also be a result of a particular context within a given system in which some of the rules or axioms (or on occasion, when they are applied to themselves) “contradict” become in “conflict,” or become “tangled.”

When a paradox is noticed, two things seem appropriate to observe; what can be said about the observer of the paradox and what can be said about what's being observed. With respect to the observer, one can notice that a paradox being observed shows a breadth of perspective held by the observer to allow them to be able to hold such in their minds in the first place (depending on the paradox, for we will see a class of paradoxes that are errors, but it's a little harder to identify what the error is). It shows the flexibility of the observer's thinking protocol and position in regards to dropping some axiomatic principles. Sometimes this flexibility entails “double-think,” in which two contradictory ideas can be held in mind [my personal experience came about with this through just understanding without the goal of picking a position in the end]. With respect to what is being observed as a paradox shows, its position and alignment relative to the frameworks we use to try to explain it. The phenomenal world is the phenomenal world, with or without our understandings of it. “It is what it is” (tautology). So when something is observed as a paradox, it may not be so much there is a fallacy in understanding it, but that our understanding of it based on paradigms of thought used are not complete, consistent, or comprehensive (and why should they ever be, as change seems to be constant (with current cosmology even saying that the laws of physics probably haven't always been the way they are now, which says something about the potential mercurial mutability of etiology), and we are also flawed and fallible (as it seems pretty regularly), and so our systems (devised by our flawed and fallible minds) will be flawed and fallible to some degree as well), or that the observation in question simply occupies a paradoxical state, regardless of systems used to understand it.

I find paradoxes to be like prime numbers, in that it's very hard to pin down clear parameters for where a paradox may occur or exist, much like it is hard to have any consistent system for generating prime numbers; what governs prime numbers and their occurrence is not that “clear.” We simply recognize them based on a characteristic that is part of their definition as prime numbers, i.e. a number (greater than one) that has only two factors. I share this because in some instances a “paradox” seems to be more of a fallacy (such as a subtle fault in reasoning or processing within a given system) than the paradoxes of “value.” They are complex problems, but with the paradoxes we'll be employing, while there may be an explanation, they are no less paradoxical [at least in the views shared here]. We have definitions for both, but can't predict either of them; we just know them when we encounter them.

With regards to skepticism, paradoxes can help us to see the underpinning loose ends of flaws in how we conceive the world and our systems for doing so. It helps the skeptic see the potential limits by casting doubt on a given system by a workable paradox “uncovered.” There are also certain aspects of my skeptical philosophy that revolve around paradox; again, the Socratic Paradox: I know I know nothing. A self-referential simultaneous affirming and denial.

It's worth mentioning that in some paradigms of thought such as those involving mysticism and esoterism, paradoxical ideas and even axioms are not uncommon. I feel that some of my philosophy is certainly influenced by these practices and studies. As a skeptic, much of the time, nothing is off limits or out of bounds. It comes down to a matter of relative and subjective feasibility perceived in a given ideal or thought structure in given contexts. If I don't know, shed all preconceived notions, jump in and see what happens; phenomenological skepticism. And yes, this does mean that I play both sides of the fence, always coming back to the fence.

There are also minds and philosophers of the Western thought paradigm that seem to allow and entertain paradoxes of some kinds in their philosophies and thoughts.

A paradox: It appears all of our knowledge is based in something that at the root is baseless. For any system we use for gathering information and “knowledge” we must first place our faith in the presuppositions that we use as axioms for said system.

Another paradox: If one knows, but does not know everything and is not “right” all the time, then that individual believes things that are erroneous or false. To be able to ascertain this is all aspects one would already have to know everything in order to weed out false beliefs. But they can never know everything, so will always be unable to fully discern between falsehoods they believe and truths they believe (and if they did know everything, this wouldn't need to be a consideration in the first place). This sort of paradox is called a Catch-22.

A second Catch-22 (this one is called the Problem of the Criterion): If one is to state a criteria (justifications) for knowing, then they must already know something, but they could they state what they know without a criteria to justify it? So we go from simply knowing back to the criterion and back to simply knowing over and over again, round and round we go. It's rare for someone to accept someone else's proposition without them being able to back it up. How often do you let someone tell you they “just know?” To be fair, there is an epistemic camp that proposes that there is innate knowledge, but then how do we really back that up?

These examples are not meant to say that our systems don't work, as there appears to be progress made in many fields all the time. It just puts on the table the cornerstone limits to our systems and ourselves. It also begs the question. It's all okay. It's the best that we can do. But there's a difference in prose between saying “this is the best and most efficient that we have come up with” and “this is what we know” (at least, without any caveats). Granted the former doesn't quite roll off the tongue. How we state things seems to show a great deal about the frame that we have placed the idea in. And some of these examples and other thought experiments to come may seem “impractical,” but I frankly don't care. They still highlight what I think is (potentially) important about the world, our relation to it, and how we think. For example, no one is a fan of infinite regress (continuous justifications for previous justifications connected to some initial proposition ad infinitum), but I find it honest in that we are forced to acknowledge where our idea of knowing is mysterious and blurred, where it ceases, and again, we notice aspects like faith in how we operate with our systems through existence. It forces a novel honesty with oneself in my opinion and philosophy. I will note that I'm not living and behaving like Phyrro was recorded to have lived and behaved, blindly walking and such .

I find skepticism at its core to be very paradoxical because it is not concerned with answers so much as questions (hence why it is not a positivist epistemic practice), and yet a great deal can be gleaned from these questions, even if deemed unanswerable. Being, as much as possible, removed from axioms and presuppositions, because those are questioned as well, some paradoxes seamlessly slide into my thinking. Since my position for many years has been understanding more so than knowing, expanding awareness (which, connotatively, I find less concrete than knowing in possessing a mutability that allows change and augmentation to thinking and “belief” structure upon reception of knew information that seems more valid and true, as well as statistically “appealing;” a game of chance, because few of us had any control over what we've be introduced to, when, and why, which includes style and format of thought), paradoxical thinking and perception sort of auto-generated for me.

Skepticism in my mind is strengthened by the use of paradoxes and paradoxical perception and thought. It opens a new road to understanding with huge breadth and depth, though it provides little for knowing other than being aware of its [potential] existence.

Children are naturally skeptics (as a child I was actually told not to ask why because I did it often, and not to get a rise out of anyone or be annoying, but because I was genuinely curious), until they assimilate to whatever thought paradigm is most prevalent in their more immediate vicinity (culture and subculture etc.) and are able to be convinced by explanations native to the thought paradigm generated by their environment. Is a conviction knowing though? We're taught in most cultures in the world that it's important “to know,” but rarely question the concept.

Side note: The first things one learns are usually the last things one is willing to question.

If every rule has exceptions, then there's at least one exception to every rule; the exception to this one being, there is no exception. Exception Paradox

Everything in moderation, including moderation. Moderation Paradox

I know I know nothing. Socratic Paradox

And for clarity, this thread is not about paradoxes, but is an aside to illustrate that anything of a paradoxical nature that occurs in the posts to come is probably there on purpose (I am fallible so could potentially put in some by accident I suppose; questioning everything), and I am likely aware of them and in this philosophy, they serve a purpose. This is sharing a flow and style of thought.

I would like to visit Quine for a brief moment. Throughout this post I have described three kinds of paradoxes very subtly that happen to parallel in some ways with Quine's distinctions of paradoxes. The first are those in which they seem not to make sense but are nevertheless true. The next are ones that are false despite all appearances, due to a hidden fallacy of reason or elucidation of context (the complex problems mentioned earlier). And lastly, those that occupy more than one state; true/false)/neither/both), on/off, dead/alive (Schrodinger's Cat). This is a simplified version of course. I encourage delving deeper if you feel inclined. To no surprise, the rabbit hole of paradox and paradoxes never gets old.

Within the bounds of the seeming of the world that I get through my apparent perception and perspective, I see paradoxes all over the place, even if there's an explanation and nothing seems out of the ordinary. We're both living and dying; despite our everyday experience to the contrary, we can't touch anything (the surface of the atoms that make up your finger and the surface of the atoms that make up the keys on your keyboard have electrons that repel each other throughout the interaction). In our practical lives this is inconsequential, but that doesn't mean it can't lend itself to our overall and growing “understanding” of the world.

This seems to be enough for now. I hope you all enjoy. Thank you for reading.

One love