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.

Many people think they know what ‘Capitalism’ is, but I strongly suspect that the majority of them have a confused, incomplete or entirely false understanding of the term.  Well, let’s endeavor to make sure that none of us on this board suffer from ignorance of what ‘Capitalism’ is and what it means.  As is our norm with such things, we will start with the dictionary, but first:

Before we go any further, I want to issue a strong word of caution:

If you look hard enough, you are going to find definitions of ‘Capitalism’ that will either imply or flat-out state that ‘Capitalism’ is a political system.  This is a false definition.  It is not true.  If you doubt me, look up the meaning of ‘political system.’  Invariably, you will find that a political system has something to do with making and enforcing the laws of a nation.  ‘Capitalism’ does not do this!  It neither makes nor enforces the laws of any nation.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  Capitalism is at the mercy of whatever laws happen to exist in whichever nation ‘Capitalism’ is practiced.  Therefore, let us get this locked in our heads before we go any further:

‘Capitalism’ is not a political system!  Period!

OK, now that this is out of the way, let’s look at how the dictionary defines ‘Capitalism:’

Definition of capitalism

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

So, what is ‘Capitalism?’  Well, first, ‘Capitalism’ is a system.  One of the most defining characteristics of this system is that  private ownership.  By this, we mean that the ‘capital’ — the property, machines and raw material necessary to market and distribute a good or service — are owned and controlled by private individuals.  This system, is not directed by any government or central planning authority; each individually owned business is responsible for making its own decisions.  These decisions are influenced by the laws of the market: supply and demand, but also competition and other external influences such as taxation and regulation.  All of these characteristics are necessary to the definition of ‘Capitalism.’  However, there are some secondary characteristics that are not necessary to the definition, but which are common enough that we should mention them.

First, ‘Capitalism’ is often found operating in conjunction with the artificial construction known as a ‘corporation.’  Often times, ownership of these corporations is held jointly by many individuals.  These individuals ‘buy in’ to the company buy purchasing stocks and/or bonds.  Essentially, these are investment vehicles that — in theory — make each stock/bond holder an owner of the company with an interest in the company equal to the percentage of the company’s total value that his/her stocks/bonds represent.

Now that we have the definition out of the way, we need to address a few things.  First, the essential characteristics of ‘Capitalism’ can be in line with Natural Law, but they are not necessarily so.  Whether or not a ‘Capitalist’ system operates in line with Natural Law depends largely upon the moral sentiments of the individual owners of every company or business operating within that ‘Capitalist’ system.  As with humanity, in general, where there is a mix of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ people, so too will any ‘Capitalist’ system have a mix of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ businesses.  The matter is further complicated when the nature of the government system under which the ‘Capitalist’ system is forced to operate is factored in to the equation.  But the point here is that ‘Capitalism’ — since it is just a system — is inherently neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad:’ neither ‘greedy’ nor ‘altruistic.’  Those things are defined by morality, which governs people, not abstractions like the ‘Capitalist’ system of trade.

The next thing we need to understand is that the secondary characteristics of ‘Capitalism’ — manly the introduction of the corporation — can also operate under the confines of Natural Law, but it becomes much more difficult.  This is because corporations are artificial entities, and the moment an artificial entity is introduced, it becomes increasingly more difficult for humans to remain inside the boundaries of Natural Law.  Once we start layering these artificial entities (i.e. corporations on top of the ‘Capitalist’ system), then the task becomes all but impossible.  This is because the risk of abuse resulting in the trampling of individual Natural Rights and Liberties becomes all but guaranteed.  But again, this is not the fault of the system, but of the people who are abusing it for their own personal gain.

Finally, the hardest part — the part that most people never recognize:

‘Capitalism’ is not the free market!

Yes, you read that correctly.  I suspect that many readers have been told that ‘Capitalism’ and ‘The Free Market’ are the same things.  They are not.  If you will go back to the dictionary definition, you will see that the proof of this is right there in the definition of ‘Capitalism:’

Definition of capitalism

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Why is this important to understand?  Because all those who attack ‘Capitalism’ do so by claiming that it is the free market that is corrupt and immoral when — in fact — it is the infringement of various flavors of tyranny into the free market that are causing all the evils and ills they list to justify destroying the ‘Capitalist’ system. You see, ‘Capitalism’ requires a free market to function.  Once you lose the free market, then whatever system is left, it is no longer ‘Capitalism’  You may call it ‘Crony Capitalism’ or ‘State-Run Capitalism,’ but the very need for the adjective is proof that you are no longer dealing with ‘Capitalism.’  So, to put it another way:

The list of ‘evils’ that is always used as evidence to ‘prove’ that Capitalism is intrinsically corrupt and needs to be replaced by some form of State-Run system are — in reality — nearly always the product of the State meddling in and corrupting the free market to the point that ‘Capitalism’ can no longer operate properly.

Strangely, in a perverted way, this is the ‘product’ that Statists sell to their customers — the masses.  They create a system that perverts and corrupts the free market, then point to the result as proof that the free market — and thus, Capitalism — has failed and needs to be replaced by more of the system they used to pervert and corrupt the free market.  These people are political pushers and their drug of choice is greed and envy, and they create the demand for their product by destroying the very thing that can actually provide a real solution: liberty!