Paradoxes of the Philosophers
Auguste Comte’s Paradoxes
The philosophy of Comte became the religion of Humanism. Comte denied that any divinity or absoluteness from God could be found in man’s soul. Yet he declared that man, or mankind, was essentially divine. To deny divinity and then declare it in the same entity is in fact a paradox.
But the further paradox in Comte’s Humanism derives from the profession of love while simultaneously declaring the tyranny of the elite, including the use of all necessary means to establish the power of the elite; it’s a conflict of love of mankind vs. the necessary power of the elite: a paradox.
Locke argued against the innateness of ideas, and therefore principles. Yet he argued for rights of individuals, which, if not innate, do not exist. It is a paradox.
The concept of cause and effect drives Hume’s empirical philosophy: every effect must have a cause, natural, observable, and proportional. So he denies that there ever has been an effect with no natural, observable, and proportional cause; it is a purposeful denial of miracles and non-proportional deities. But by saying that unobservable causes have not been observed, he is merely stating the obvious, a tautology. And by declaring that effects with no observable cause do not exist because they have to be mistakes due the fact that they cannot exist, he engages in circular reasoning. And by demanding evidence without giving evidence for the validity of his demand is a contradiction, a paradox.
Perhaps Hume is better known for declaring that it is not possible to connect an effect to a specific cause with any degree of certainty. This is because no matter how many observations we have made that do connect the effect to the cause without fail, it still does not follow that any or all future effects will, with certainty, be connected to that specific cause. This places Hume’s skepticism directly in conflict with his Empiricism. In other words, Hume created his own paradox.
But most of all, his biggest paradox is his claim not to be an Atheist (while seeking employment as a professor), while having blatantly denied all the structural basis for the existence of metaphysics, much less God.
Kant turned philosophy sunny side up with his transcendental idealism, wherein he declared an internal object of knowledge that exists without our having implementing it, or even knowing about it’s implementation. This is a paradox only to Natural Materialists, who cannot deny the logic but cannot comprehend anything transcendental. So the paradox is really the Natural Materialist Paradox, wherein transcendental effects are both proven and denied.
His two major premises had come to him as lightning flashes, visions, revelations during his manic periods. They played together in Nietzche’s mind as pillars of his influence in the world. They required each other. His Ubermench, the “overman” to which the human race would evolve and then disappear in the shadows of, and the eternal return cycle that all the universe is embedded within, to relive time and again, a universal, eternal “becoming”. Although he had relieved himself of the necessity of non-contradiction by his famous denial of the first principles, he was nonetheless caught in his contradiction. The human race would occur over and over again, while waiting to evolve into the ubermench. The cycle was an exercise in futility, a contradiction, a devastating paradox.
Nietzsche received ridicule for his theoretical paradox, in spite of his “proof” that paradox doesn’t exist because truth doesn’t exist. This situation was devastating, a rational lock down on an antirational theory. Nietzsche was unable to release either of the conflicting positions; the conflict took its toll. Shortly, Nietzsche the rabid antirationalist became Nietzsche the chronically irrational; he became insane and remained so until his death, eleven years later.
Marvin Minsky writes: “ The physical world provides no room for freedom of will. (yet) that concept is essential to our models of the mental realm. Too much of our psychology is based on it for us ever to give it up. We’re virtually forced to maintain that belief, even though we know it is false.”
We know it is false because? If we are
Naturalists only, then it is false by definition. We have intuited its falseness, even though we have no empirical
justification. We need it to be false,
or naturalism is false. We want it to
be false. It is our will that there
is no free will; a fine paradox.
“If all ideas are products of evolution, and not really true but only useful, then evolution itself is not true either.” This idea of Darwin’s causes “evolution” as a theory to refute itself, a hard-edged paradox.
Darwinian theory drives everything including human nature. Yet we should follow our intellectual capacity to “transcend” the “conventional Darwinian constraints”, and pursue altruism and ethics as fostered by society.
If everything is Darwinian-random and accidental, undirected and without purpose, how does one “transcend”? It’s a paradox. See also “Darwin’s Horrid Doubt Paradox”.
Decision implies free will; without free will all actions would be deterministic and decisions would be impossible. That Dawkins made one implies non-Darwinism for starters. If cause must be proportional to effect, then random undirected Darwinism would cause random undirected mental processes, or at best, focused, unrestrained breeding and preservation activity.
His decision to remain monogamous, going strictly against Darwinian forces, is an admission that Darwinism does not drive human decision making. Thus his decision is an Un-Darwinian paradox.
Nothing is true. Well, OK, Darwinism is true, absolutely true, and it proves that nothing is true. A paradox.
Consciousness is defined as having irreducible intentionality. So we have:
1. The brain: material; non-intentional.
2. The mind: non-material; intentional.
These two features define a “dualist” vision of the brain / mind conundrum. The two existences do not overlap, they are totally separate. However, dualism is “untenable” by definition (Searle’s). Therefore, the mind “must” be material if a monistic vision is to be justified.
So, if the mind is material, it must be of a material that is not known, a material that is not empirically detectable, an unknown substance without out mass, weight and other measurable qualities. And one that leaves no artifact when death occurs.
This unknown substance is deduced, not empirically detected. It is, in fact, intuited: it “must“ be there if dualism is to be avoided. It is declared to be beyond our knowledge, transcending all our ability to know within the constraints of empiricism.
So, a transcendent assumption is used to avoid the necessary transcendent conclusion of dual, separate existences of the brain and the mind. Using transcendence to invalidate transcendence is clearly a paradox. It is also “science of the gaps” and a jump-to-conclusion fallacy.
Bertrand Russell’s
“Naïve Realism” Paradox.
“Naïve Realism [‘the doctrine that
things are what they seem’] leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that
naïve realism is false. Therefore naïve
realism, if true, is false; therefore it is false [paradoxical].”
Bertrand Russell, “An inquiry into
Meaning and Truth”. Quoted by Einstein in “Ideas and Opinions”. (first paren
from previous text; second paren added).
Russell’s “naïve realism” (things are what they seem) is the idea that our sensory perceptions of color, shape, hardness, etc. drive our concept of reality, and produced the pursuit of reality: Physics. Yet they are not the things of physics, which goes deeper than the cosmetics of the object being observed, and shows that things are not “what they seem”. So the origin of physics is (paradoxically) falsified by it’s own spawn, physics. Then doesn’t physics itself sit upon a base of paradox? (Nice one Bert!).
Zeno “asserts
the non-existence of motion on the ground that that which is in locomotion must
arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.” Because there are always more halfway points
to be crossed, the goal can never be reached.
Therefore, motion does not exist.
From
(Aristotle Physics, 239b11) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#2
The Monistic Paradox
Monism states that the brain and the mind are the same thing. The mind does not exist outside or beyond the brain. So the mind is a product of evolution just as is the brain.
Now if the mind is just an evolutionary feature of the body, then the functions of the mind are predetermined by evolution, just as are the functions of the body. So concepts are predetermined and Monism would be a predetermined evolutionary effect. As a predetermined evolutionary effect, any theory would not be based on current reality, but on previous survival tactics. So there would be no truth value attached to it, merely a functionality value (it worked or didn’t work as a tactic for survival).
With no truth value, the theory would never be true. Therefore it contradicts itself, and is a paradox.
The “Darwin’s
Horrid Doubt” Paradox.
Darwin wrote:
“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind,
which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value at
all or trustworthy.”
Charles
Darwin, “Life and Letters of Charles Darwin”, 1898; Francis Darwin, ed; From
“Total Truth”, Nancy Pearcy.
If the mind is derivative, it’s worthless babblings would make the entire theory false. Darwin realized that the human mind was much more than a random assembly of evolved microstructures glued together in the cranium. And if that is so, his entire theory is contradictory to fact.. It’s a nasty, “horrid” little paradox.
“If my mental
processes are determined wholly by motions of atoms in my brain, I have no
reason to suppose that my beliefs are true – and hence I have no reason for
believing that my brain is composed of atoms.” {a dubious paradox form a
dubious worldview. css]
J. B. S. Haldane,
British Evolutionist.
“Once I come to
doubt the reliability of my cognitive faculties, I can’t properly try to allay
that doubt by producing an argument; for in so doing I rely on the very
faculties I am doubting. The conjunction of evolution and naturalism gives its
adherents a reason for doubting that our beliefs are mostly true; perhaps they
are mostly wildly mistaken. But then it won’t help to argue that they can’t be
wildly mistaken; for the very reason for mistrusting our cognitive faculties
generally will be a reason for mistrusting the faculties generating the beliefs
involved in the argument.”
Alvin Plantinga
By their own admission, evolutionists must admit either that their beliefs are not reliable, or their minds are not material, nor evolved randomly.
1. The Bible is declared spiritually FALSE although it is geographically, historically, genealogically true, and is used by archaeologists and historians alike.
2. However Atheism declares that spirituality doesn’t exist, that intellect is supreme, the only source of truth. So folks that are non-spiritual, ethically relativist, with no spiritual content or experience, are making judgments with respect to spirituality.
3. A party that doesn’t recognize the possibility of “truth” of a proposition cannot make a declaration of true/false. (Principle of Non-Contradiction).
4. It’s a paradox.
1. The Scientific Naturalist claims complete faith in the empirical process, despite the limitations of the process, and the primitive current state of knowledge (lack of existing evidence).
2. Yet the S.N. decries religion due the use of faith in the process, despite the rational logic and forensic evidence that currently exists in support for that faith.
3. It is a non-contradiction paradox caused by the atheist worldview, not to mention a lack of understanding of the concept of “faith”.
1. By definition, a non-contingent effect causes itself. These effects are not observed, but if such a phenomenon did exist, how would it self-limit? It could not. So it would be popping itself into existence everywhere, all the time.
2. Yet Atheism holds that the Big Bang is a non-contingent effect, which had no cause other than itself.
3. But the Big Bang occurred only once, not everywhere, all the time.
4. This is a paradox, manufactured out of a confused worldview.
The Paradox of the Non-Contingent Effect, #2
2. This is a paradox.
1. If the Big Bang is a contingent effect, then the necessary cause exists outside, beyond, and is bigger, more complex than the contingent effect (First Principle: Cause and Effect).
2. Yet the Atheist denies the existence of the necessary cause, in the face of the obvious contingent effect.
3. In Atheism, a paradox, bordering on hoax. Self-delusion, out of a cherished worldview.
The Mind Paradoxes
1. The atheist mind recognizes only “Natural” and Material” effects, rejecting everything that cannot be proven empirically or forensically. So the Atheist mind must also reject the existence of a mind, since such an intangible cannot be proven to exist empirically or forensically. The Atheist mind thus rejects itself, a paradox. (Einstein’s Rebuff).
2. If the mind is just an assortment of accidentally connected neurons, firing randomly, how can it be considered the source of all truth? If its function is Darwinian survival, the mind should only think of conquest, and never, ever sleep. And it should especially not dawdle in abstract thoughts… such as “does the mind exist”!
3. So the Darwinian mind cannot think Darwinian thoughts…a paradox.
The Scientific Materialism
Paradox
Premise: Materialism is the only source of
truth. Question: Is Materialism
material? No, it is a concept, not
provable by Scientific Materialism. If
Materialism is the only truth, then reason itself is impossible, because reason
is not material. So if the premise is
true, it denies itself, which is a paradox.
Premise: All truth can be revealed by empiricism.
Is this statement provable using empiricism? No. The premise is self-contradictory, and therefore it is a paradox: false. Yet Atheists such as Dawkins and Hawking will claim it to be true. So they either believe that a false statement is true, or they have deep, deep faith that it will turn from false to true some time..
Either way, it is a violation of the Principle of Non-Contradiction.