NOTE TO THE READER: In the interest of full disclosure, I want to make it known beforehand that I am openly hostile to the idea of the dialectic, and for reasons which I hope I will soon make perfectly clear.

Karl Marx developed a political theory he called ‘dialectic materialism.’  A ‘dialectic‘ is basically the inversion of opposites.  In other words, a ‘dialectic’ is when a concept or process finds its reality in its opposite.  For example: something becomes hot by becoming cold; or a thing ceases to exist by coming in to existence.  But George Orwell may have explained it better with his term, ‘double-think,’ which is: ‘a simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas.’

Now, before I go any further, let me say that I am fully aware that dedicated Marxists are going to vehemently disagree with my definitions of the dialectic.  That’s fine: they are free to disagree all they like, but that does not make my definitions wrong.  It just means they do not see or understand their error for reasons I am about to explain.

In my post about ‘Contradictions,’ I explain that a contradiction is an absurdity.  An absurdity is something that is not real, something that does not and cannot exist in the objective or ‘real’ world.  By definition, this means that anyone who sincerely believes in and embraces an absurdity is out of touch with the real world.  Well, as impolitic as this may be to say, the common term for someone who is out of touch with the ‘real’ world is ‘insanity.’  So let me say this clearly:

Yes!  I am saying that I believe Marxists are insane.

Now, let me prove my claim.  We start with the foundation of Marxist theory: the notion of ‘material dialectic.’  Marx believed that nothing is permanent.  Everything changes; everything is in a constant process of becoming and ceasing to be.

OK, stop right there.  If you have read my post on the applied logic in reference to contradiction, then you may already recognize that this assertion is self-contradicting.  And, if it is self-contradicting, then it is absurd, which means — in the terms we are currently using — ‘insane.’  So, how is it self-contradicting?  Simple:

Marx says nothing is permanent.

Then he says everything is in a constant state of change.

That constant state of change is permanent, which cannot be according to his first claim.

Therefore, Marx’s idea of the material dialectic is base on a self-defeating contradiction and, therefore, is an absurdity — as is everything which flows from it.

Now, as I stated earlier: anyone who sincerely believes in and embraces an absurdity is ‘insane.’  Ergo, Marxists are insane.  But then, so are all those who believe in the ideas which flowed from it.  Ideas such as Communism and Socialism…

These ideas — Marxism, Communism and Socialism — do not exist or function in the real world.  This is because they violate the principles of Natural Law.  Now, it is true, they can be given the appearance of existing, but only for a short time.  It is much like sweeping water up hill with a broom: it can be done, but only for so long.  Eventually, the weight and volume of the water overcomes your ability to hold back the force of gravity and the water floods past your broom.  Well, this is what happens in all Communes and Socialist economies/Nations.  They can be made to work for a short time but, eventually, the Natural Las governing human nature and economics eventually take over and they fail.  Venezuela is the most recent example of this fact: and I say ‘fact’ because this has ever been the result of all Communist/Socialist systems.  They have all failed in the span of one lifetime — or less (keep in mind that this does not mean a nation has to cease to exist. The ‘resetting’ of a government indicates the failure of the previous government).

Other illustrations of the point I am trying to make would be:

Flying: just because you manage to get up in a balloon, plane, helicopter or other device, this does not mean you can now fly.  As soon as the power allowing you to fly runs out, gravity will prove to you that you cannot fly, you can only ride in a machine that flies, and even then, only so long as it has the power to defy gravity.

One cannot spend forever without producing.  Even if you borrow the money, someone else is still producing the money you borrow.  Therefore, you are just passing off the production to another person, but you are still dependent upon production.  Nor can one just ‘print’ money.  This is because that money has no value behind it because there is no production behind it.  Therefore, it soon becomes useless — like it has in Venezuela.  Sooner or later, the laws of economics will assert themselves.

One cannot change the nature of a thing by changing the word we use to discuss that thing.  For example: if it is believed that the word ‘handicapped’ carries a bad connotation, one cannot change that image in the mind of other people simply by forcing them to use the word, ‘challenged.’  The word may change, but the image or the nature of the issue does not.  This is because words do not create the nature of a thing, instead, words are used to describe or discuss that nature.  The thing is not created by the word, the word is created to discuss or describe the thing.  The laws of language and logic do not bend to the whim of the ‘insane.’

So, hopefully the reader can see that, while we may be able to convince ourselves that an absurdity is true, this does not make it true.  However, if we believe that something is true simply because we believe it, that does makes us insane.  Hence, the Marxist is insane because he or she believes in something that is not true, and it is not true by definition.  In this case, that would be the definition of ‘contradiction.’

This post is intended to demonstrate how we can use our understanding of ‘contradiction‘ in the real world.  We are going to use a factual claim that is often made by those on the American political Left.  It usually takes some form to the affect of:

“There are no absolute truths!”

Now, if we understand the concept of ‘contradiction,’ and we can find a contradiction in this statement, then we can defeat the argument.  Or, in more practical terms, we can justifiably ignore the argument and the person making it.  So, let us see if we can find a contradiction in this argument.

We start by accepting that it is true: there are no absolute truths.

However, this is — itself — a statement of absolute truth.

Therefore, in order for this statement to be true, it has to be an absolute truth, because it claims to be true about all truth.

This means that both things have to be true at the same time: there are and there are not absolute truths.

This is a textbook example of a self-defeating argument.  This is because it contradicts itself.  It claims one thing is true, but proves the opposite is actually true.  This means the entire argument is unsound.  It and all claims based on it are absurdities, and all things follow an absurdity.  Therefore, a rational person is not only justified in dismissing the argument, they would be wise to do so — especially an argument as clearly dangerous as this one.

By knowing the implications of a contradiction and then learning how to spot them,  it becomes harder for people to convince us to accept absurdities.  And that ability to spot absurdities can empower ourselves to make better decisions about the issues that affect our lives and the lives of our family, friends and community.  Plus, it gives us more confidence that we know why we believe the things we believe.  Instead of just rejecting an idea because we don’t like the way it sounds, now we can explain why we reject it.  Or the other way around.  If we catch ourselves making a contradiction in our own arguments, we can work out that contradiction, which will help us better understand our own idea and make our argument stronger at the same time.

See how easy this can all be — and how valuable?

This is one of the fundamental principles of logic which everyone should know and understand, yet it is one of the principles that seem to be least known and understood.  In this short lesson, we will try to explain the basic principle of contradiction and what it means in relation to logic, reason and critical thinking (i.e. ‘right reasoning’).

By the way: a contradiction is also a fallacy: and a big one, at that.

As always, we start with the definition:

Definition of contradiction

1 : act or an instance of contradicting the defendant’s contradiction of the plaintiff’s accusations

2a : a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something “… both parts of a contradiction cannot possibly be true …”— Thomas Hobbes

b : a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other a round square is a contradiction in terms

3a : logical incongruity

b : a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another

OK, for the purposes at hand — understanding the basic rules of formal logic — we are going to use 2a as the meaning of ‘contradiction:’ when two or more statements are asserted as fact where it is impossible for both or all of them to be true at the same time.  The simplest example would be:

I exist at this exact place and in this exact point in time.

I do not exist at this exact place and at this exact point in time.

It is impossible for me to both exist and not exist at the same exact place and the same exact point in time, therefore, these two statements ‘contradict’ each other. (my apologies to the folks in quantum mechanics, but this is true and you need to rethink your theories based on the idea that a thing can exist and not exist at the same time.)

In formal logic, a contradiction is known as an ‘absurdity.’  In short, this means that a contradiction has no relation to objective reality.  It is a ‘make believe,’ or an ‘impossibility.’  One might say it is the stuff of childish thinking and reasoning.  While it may be amusing, it is laughable because it has no real substance or existence.  Hence the term, ‘absurd.’

In formal logic, absurdities are important because they destroy the argument in which they are found.  There is a saying in logic: ‘From an absurdity, all things follow.’  Meaning, once one accepts something that is absurd as factual, then any claim of truth based on that claim must be accepted.  So, if we accept that something can and cannot exist at the same place and time, then we can claim that there is a unicorn sliding down a rainbow to a pot of gold guarded by a leprechaun.  If we accept that something exists and does not exists at the same time, we must accept that we are — in fact — dealing with a unicorn sliding on a rainbow toward a pot of gold guarded by a leprechaun.  None of us would believe the story about the unicorn because we know these things do not exist in the real or objective world.   But, if we had caught the contradiction, we could have stopped there and we could have avoided having to deal with the whole story about the imaginary unicorn.

OK,  let’s go over this again — just to make sure we understand it:

A contradiction is when two or more statements are asserted as fact where it is impossible for both or all of them to be true at the same time.

Contradictions are known as ‘absurdities.’

From an absurdity, all things follow.

Now, here is why it is important to understand contradictions.  When a formal or informal argument is being made and a contradiction is encountered, it renders that argument ‘unsound.’  This means the argument cannot exist in the real world, therefore, the conclusions are unlikely to exist in the real world.  In short, it destroys the logic supporting the argument.  A rational person has little to no reason to accept an unsound argument.  Therefore, a rational person has little to no reason to accept an argument containing a contradiction.  Or, to put it another way, logic allows you to dismiss any argument that contains a contradiction.  You can just ignore it and you are perfectly justified in doing so.*

This is why we should all know and understand what contradictions are and what they mean to us when we are trying to think our way through whatever issue or argument we may encounter in our lives.  This is especially true where matters such as money and politics are concerned.  You will often catch salesmen in contradictions.  Well, guess what?  If they contradict themselves, that means you cannot and should not trust a single thing they have said to you.  The same applies to politicians.  Now, I am not saying they are lying to you.  They may be, or they may actually believe what they are saying.  Either way, it does not matter.  Once you know that you cannot have two contradicting things at the same time, you know that you cannot trust any conclusion that depends upon those two things.  Therefore, when you catch someone trying to make you believe something that is based on a contradiction, you can and probably should reject it — no matter who it is or what they want you to believe.  Just ask them to come back when they resolve the contradiction in their argument and walk away.

*NOTE: it is possible for the conclusion of an unsound argument to be factually true, but that still does not mean we have to accept that conclusion as true because it rests on a foundation that does not support it.  It would be like saying:

The moon is made totally out of green cheese. 

The moon is made totally out of moon rock. 

The astronauts brought back rocks from the moon.

While it is true, the astronauts did bring back rocks from the moon, it is a contradiction to state that the moon is made totally out of green cheese and moon rock.  Therefore, we can reject the conclusion that the astronauts brought back rocks.  They may have actually brought back green cheese.  We cannot be sure from the information given in this argument.

In the event that anyone who reads this board may be confused about this issue:

Trump’s tweet about the four Democratic female Representatives was not ‘racist‘ — period!

I do not wish to spend a great deal of time on this post, but I want to make sure I make the point clearly and forcefully.  So, let’s start with what Trump actually wrote — mostly because no one wants to publish it (if you doubt me, go search for it.  Lot’s of people are telling you Trump’s words were racist, but they won’t print his actual tweets — and for good reason).  Here is what Trump actually tweeted:

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019

….and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019

….it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019

For the record, I had to use two different sources to splice the full Tweets together.  That is how hard ‘They’ are working to keep you from seeing what Trump actually said.  They only want you to see and hear what they are telling you Trump said — and what his Tweets mean (according to ‘Them’).  Why?  Well, let’s apply a little logic here:

1 — Did Trump name anyone, specifically, in his Tweets?  NO!  So, how do we know who to whom he was directing his comments?  Now, don’t get me wrong: I know and you know he was talking about the four Congresswomen who immediately objected, but he did not use their names.  On the other side of the isle, this would be enough for them to deny they who they were addressing and any honest person who follows U.S. politics knows I am correct.

2 — Did Trump mention race, or the color of the skin of any of the people he addressed?  NO!  The idea of ‘race’ has to be injected into Trump’s Tweet.  This is because it simply is not in Trump’s actual words or the context of his Tweet — not even by inference.

3 — So, how does one find ‘Racism’ in Trump’s Tweet?  The answer is simple: the person or people who see ‘Racism’ in Trump’s words see it because they think primarily in terms of race, themselves.

4 — What does all this mean to the person attempting to analyze this issue using logic?  Simple: Trump’s Tweet does not contain evidence of ‘Racism.’  In fact, the only real evidence of people who think in terms of ‘Race’ is found in those accusing Trump of making a ‘Racist’ Tweet.

Now, let me make this very clear:

I do not support the tone of Trump’s words.  They were crass.  But they were not ‘Racist,’ and I reject anyone who tries to argue they were!  I reject them, not because I am also ‘Racist,’ but because I try to use logic to find and align myself with the Truth, and the Truth is that Trump’s Tweet simply was not ‘Racist!’

Now, that said, I want to close by pointing out a few indications of real ‘Racism.’  If the reader will look outside of Google, the reader will find that the American Left is attacking an entire race based solely on the color of their skin — whites!  By any definition, that is Racism, and it is coming from the Left — because that is where it has always lived in America.  The Democrats have always been, supported and advanced Racism, and they continue to do so today.  This is simply historical fact!  Therefore, if we have Racism in America, it lies primarily with the Left.  The Left has just stolen the issue so they can use it to silence their enemies.

Finally, this story contains strong evidence of hypocrisy, as well.  If Trump’s Tweet was crude, then the language coming from the four Congresswomen he addressed is down-right vile.  Here again, the reader has to search for their words outside of Google and social media.  Those sources are aligned with the Democrats and American Left, so they actively hide the vile language that flows from these four women. But make no mistake: there is more vile language coming from the American Left than from Trump.  This is also a matter of fact!

Remember, those who try to use logic to find Truth do not argue with facts.

ADDITIONAL READING:

Trump’s Tweet About Congresswomen Is Full of Issues but It Isn’t Racist

This is yet another term over which the majority of Americans harbor great confusion.  So, in the interest of making it clearly understood as to how this term will be used on this board, let us define ‘The Free Market.’  We will start with the dictionary definition:

Definition of free market

: an economy operating by free competition

OK, before we go any further, this definition demands that we understand what we mean by ‘Free.’  I have addressed this definition in my post, “What Is ‘Freedom?’”  However, for the purposes of defining ‘The Free Market,’ let us understand that it refers to a system where the exchange of goods and services that is open to competition and regulated only by supply and demand.  In other words, ‘The Free Market’ means there is little to no government regulation or control over the market.

Once we understand that ‘The Free Market’ is all about open competition, and is regulated not by government, but by the laws which govern supply and demand, then we have a fairly solid understanding of what we mean by, ‘The Free Market.’  However, while this definition is simply and easy to understand, it also gives rise to many objections — all of which will ultimately rest upon the assertion that the free market will lead to greed and corruption.

Well, as I explained in “What Is “‘Capitalism?’,”  ‘The Free Market’ is a system, and systems are neither ‘good’ nor ‘evil;’ neither ‘greedy and corrupt,’ nor ‘benevolent and altruistic.’  How ‘The Free Market’ operates depends entirely upon the individuals that operate within it.  Since the nature of any ‘Free Market’ depends upon the nature of those running it, this means — as with all humans — we will find both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ mixed together.  Whether ‘The Free Market’ is more ‘good’ or more ‘evil’ in any given economy will then depend largely upon the culture, which is — in turn — intertwined with the government and religion.

Here’s the ‘take-away:’

‘The Free Market’ is a neutral system.  It is neither ‘good’ nor ‘evil,’ but exists on a sliding scale.  One one end, the more moral the culture and people, the less regulated and more ‘open’ the ‘Free Market’ will tend to be.  On the other end of that scale, the more corrupt and immoral the people and their government, the more controlled and, thus, less ‘open’ the market will be. 

The extremes on either end of this scale are both lawless.  On one side, there is no law whatsoever: the market is governed by every individual trying to force their will upon every other individual.  At the other extreme, there is total law, which is itself lawlessness because — ultimately — it comes down to one individual forcing his/her will upon all others.  At best, ‘The Free Market’ can only exist or be understood in terms of ‘how free’ a given market may be.  The fewer rules, the ‘more free’ the market — until there are too few rules to force individuals to self-regulate their own desires.  And the more rules, the ‘less free’ a given market until it reaches a point where the individual no longer has control over their own affairs in the market.  Thus, ‘The Free Market’ cannot exist on either end of this scale because ‘Freedom‘ cannot exist on either end of the scale and should be understood and discussed in terms of where a given market lies upon this scale.