Unable to reconcile 'Both, neither, far beyond either' aspect to the three laws of thought by Aristotle in face of which Nagarjuna's Madhyamika/Buddhist emptiness philosophy also looks untenable.
You'd have to tell me more about Aristotle's 3 laws for me to be able to say anything very specific here. I've read a bit of Nagarjuna but not too much. All I can really say for now is that things don't have to reconcile 'logically' -- paradox is not an issue for God. Reality is basically a Rorschach test; you can look at it through any reality-tunnel and find evidence to confirm that reality-tunnel; thus every reality-tunnel, every experience, becomes true within its own context. Some reality-tunnels, however, get closer to the 'true view' -- i.e. seeing reality as reality sees itself; this is basically the view-less view, the perspective of pure IS-NESS that one discovers when one glimpses beyond any reference point.
Yes, thanks, i get that. Adding the word 'tunnel' to the word 'reality' makes your thesis quite clear. Here is an excerpt from Aristotle's work:
Western philosophical and scientific thought is based on Aristotelian logic, whose founding principles are the three “Laws of Thought”. These can be briefly stated as “A is A” (Identity), “Nothing is both A and non-A” (Non-contradiction) and “Nothing is neither A nor non-A” (Exclusion of the Middle). These are not claimed as mere hypotheses, note well, but as incontrovertible premises of all rational human thought[2].
Here is the larger link (exhaustive optional read if you wish to read) that elaborates its problem with Nagarjuna's philosophy (which in some ways is a parallel/subset of 'both, neither, far beyond' either).
So, yeah, basically Aristotle's '3 laws' are not laws at all... they're just arbitrary suppositions of someone who was trying very hard to pin the world down into something categorizable, neat, quantifiable, intelligible... they're true within their own context -- i.e. if you buy that context, sure, you can look at the world that way, and you will confirm to yourself that it's true via selective perception. But reality is actually far stranger, more multi-dimensional and paradoxical than Aristotle is giving it credit for
Have you watched the fecal transplant episode on South Park? Because this is the shit I like. 😂
But jokes aside, this has also been my operating system for the past 6 or more months. It’s both absurd and divine. Let’s get some pizza. 🍕
Unable to reconcile 'Both, neither, far beyond either' aspect to the three laws of thought by Aristotle in face of which Nagarjuna's Madhyamika/Buddhist emptiness philosophy also looks untenable.
You'd have to tell me more about Aristotle's 3 laws for me to be able to say anything very specific here. I've read a bit of Nagarjuna but not too much. All I can really say for now is that things don't have to reconcile 'logically' -- paradox is not an issue for God. Reality is basically a Rorschach test; you can look at it through any reality-tunnel and find evidence to confirm that reality-tunnel; thus every reality-tunnel, every experience, becomes true within its own context. Some reality-tunnels, however, get closer to the 'true view' -- i.e. seeing reality as reality sees itself; this is basically the view-less view, the perspective of pure IS-NESS that one discovers when one glimpses beyond any reference point.
Yes, thanks, i get that. Adding the word 'tunnel' to the word 'reality' makes your thesis quite clear. Here is an excerpt from Aristotle's work:
Western philosophical and scientific thought is based on Aristotelian logic, whose founding principles are the three “Laws of Thought”. These can be briefly stated as “A is A” (Identity), “Nothing is both A and non-A” (Non-contradiction) and “Nothing is neither A nor non-A” (Exclusion of the Middle). These are not claimed as mere hypotheses, note well, but as incontrovertible premises of all rational human thought[2].
Here is the larger link (exhaustive optional read if you wish to read) that elaborates its problem with Nagarjuna's philosophy (which in some ways is a parallel/subset of 'both, neither, far beyond' either).
http://avisionbuddhism.bravesites.com/entries/nagarjuna/1-nagarjuna-fake-logic#:~:text=The%20Tetralemma%20Western%20philosophical%20and%20scientific%20thought%20is,neither%20A%20nor%20non-A%E2%80%9D%20%28Exclusion%20of%20the%20Middle%29.
But yes, whether or not i can reconcile, i appreciate the overall drift of your original post.
Thanks for sharing <3
So, yeah, basically Aristotle's '3 laws' are not laws at all... they're just arbitrary suppositions of someone who was trying very hard to pin the world down into something categorizable, neat, quantifiable, intelligible... they're true within their own context -- i.e. if you buy that context, sure, you can look at the world that way, and you will confirm to yourself that it's true via selective perception. But reality is actually far stranger, more multi-dimensional and paradoxical than Aristotle is giving it credit for