I need help on the law of non-contraction exploring a personal daily struggle and the challenges posted to my beliefs and decisions. I am trying to understand the law so I can write about a personal daily struggle that is an example of this law of non-contradiction.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com July 18, 2018, 6:17 pm ad1c9bdddf
Hi and thank you for using Brainmass. I understand how this particular philosophical concept could be a little disconcerting. There will always be certain concepts that appear a little too vague especially if narrative arguments are also presented as logical proofs. Now, the simple fact of the matter is this - in the law of non-contradiction 2 anti-ethical positions cannot be true at the same time. It is like saying A is true and -A is true in the same context, at the same time, always. How can one who is the antithesis of the other be true if the the thing or idea that it is the opposite of is also true? What then is the corollary of this? If we say A = -A and if we say that A represents the concept of Life, then the anti-thesis of A, -A, which in this case means death is equal to life? The law of non-contradiction helps us going into this irrational and illogical tangent because death can never be equal to life at the same time, no one is alive and dead at the same time. Let us apply this to things - for example, can a tree be there and not there at the same time, in the same place? The law of non-contradiction dates back to the time of the Classical philosophers from Plato to Aristotle. It is one of the most basic notions of ontology and epistemology then, about what is real and what isn't via the application of then notions of logic, how they made sense of reality. Now we have to take into account the bounds of the law - it pertains to the idea that the anti-ethical positions, the opposite of each other, bounded by time and the context in which they apply. The time factor is important because something can be true now and its opposite can be true in the future or was true in the past. Consider this - you were small as a child and now you are big as an adult. Big and small in this context pertains to your body size hence these notions are true but their being true occurred at different intervals of your life as part of the process of your growth. Now, the paper expected from you is one where you are expected to explore your life using the principles of non-contradiction in relation to your beliefs and to your decisions. What is important here are the elements of daily struggle, beliefs and decisions. In a paper it is easy to go off-tangent. You must focus on these elements and see how the law of non-contradiction applies. You are not in all cases expected to comply with the law, it will be interesting somewhat to question it even in the paper if you feel that it doesn't apply, this way you will be exercising a kind of philosophical critique that your professor is expecting from philosophy students. You mention rationalism and human knowing - these elements do come into play as expressed ideas and concepts: when we say rationalism we imply the search for truth by the use of logic and reason and human knowing pertains to cognition - our process of ...
The solution comes in 2 parts. Part 1 is in the form of a letter to the student, providing advise on how to tackle the problem/task of performing a one's own personal-life via the lens of non-contradiction using the daily struggles one faces plus the challenges one must hurdle against one's beliefs and decisions. The second part is an example of this kind of examination, a 1,407-word narrative that use the law of non-contradiction to examine a life via the first person perspective. References are listed. a word version of the solution is attached for easy printing and digital use.