Consider this statement:
“Everything has an end”
I think many of you here can agree with this. But that means that the claim in this above statement also has an end. So one day, there might be some things that don’t have an end. Is my logic correct, or can it be refuted?
As a note, I am a layman to Philosophy (I come from a Mathematical background), so please include the definition of advanced words if you need to.
Sure. We can say everything has an end and then immediately realize that this statement contradicts itself. Since antiquity philosophers grappled with contradictions like this. First Heraclitus, Parmenides, and sophists, then Socrates, Plato and Aristoteles tried to save philosophy from self-contradictions. They all failed in one way or other. In the modern period, this question was first taken by Kant, who concluded that metaphysics was impossible because of contradictions. Then it was answered by Hegel who showed us a systematic way to avoid contradictions. The path Hegel took was to face the contradiction head-on and overcome it in a higher abstraction level. This was the core of his dialectical method. For example: “Everything has an end”, which lead us to “Everything has no end”. So the things are always such that they both have an end and no end at the same time. How is this possible? Because things are not fixed but dynamic and changing. Their fixedness is illusory. It destroys itself at another point. Introducing the time element allows us to overcome any contradiction. So not only physical things but concepts, ideas also move and change in time.
This is all well but it isn’t really satisfactory from a meta-philosophical view point. Because the contradiction establishes itself again at the higher abstraction level as well. So what Hegel does is just postponing the contradiction and creating a circle that closes itself on itself and hope that the contradiction solves itself in this self-enclosing loop.
In the 20th century, we saw that the contradictions are not just philosophical or even logical but they enter mathematics as well. First shown by Russell and then Gödel. Ways were found to avoid them of course but the questions remain.
So I would argue thar we can avoid contradictions while we conduct good philosophy, logic, maths, science and in our daily life but they in fact stay unresolved on a deeper level.
"Everything has an end, a sausage has two." -German proverb
We think space and time began with the Big Bang. So, where and when did the Big Bang come from..? A compelling theory called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology developed by Nobel winner Roger Penrose, suggests our universe will cease to experience time once only photons are left (for slightly technical reasons, photons don't exerience time, see Does light experience time?
A great deal of our language depends on comparisons, and 'end' is one of those things, see: Life and Death as one and the same?
It's quite a common thing for people to use a statement that aims to move a discussion forward, and say, in the terms of the old debate, the new statement is self-contradictory. And indeed, that's why the debate hadn't moved on. An example is when people say Postmodernism is the metanarrative of not having metanarratives, the philosophy of not expecting one final unified philosophy - but in it's own terms, it describes skepticism or incredulity towards metanarratives, rather than an assertion of being the final one.
So another example, the ancient wisdom-tradition saying, This too shall pass. Shall that also pass? Once there are only photons left, who will know..? And yet, it expresses something even more timeless, that it's in the nature of things that arise, to be time-bound, and to pass, whether we wish it or not, and there is comfort knowing it applies to the good and the bad.
A core job of philosophy is investigating definitions, and especially edge-cases or where terms seem to start fraying and breaking down.
What does it mean to stand outside of time, in a place where ending has ended? Well, surely it would be unbegun also, timeless. An example might be the E8 mathematical structure, which seems to represent all possible sets of fundamental physical. To not pass away is also to not arise, which means to have always been.
Phase is not definitely correct.
Everything has borders. If a thing has no borders you can't identify where/when this thing is - thing without borders is not determinate in some area/set/time.
Also it is not correct that "Everything has an end, a sausage has two". A sausage has two border sides but are they are either ends or beginnings, depending on the context. So, the context determines what is the cause and what is the consequence (effect). Cause is similar to beginning, and consequence is for end of the thing.
And a third point. All things have a context of interaction. If a thing has no effect you can't say anything about it; there are no facts of its existing. But whether it is a beginning or an end is based on specific facts. Without the facts this discussion is meaningless.
About facts and coastline problem. When i tell about "facts" i mean not particle individuals cases like complexity or confusion of the coastline fractal images. This is not a 'the facts' i mean, this facts have a place to be, but this facts doesn't create the continuity picture, but fragmented kaleidoscope images. So if think about borders, you ll get multiple magnification of the similar structures contained borders. So this analysis will give you system complication, but analysis wouldn't be ever final result of something, only synthesis can be a result, so we need to collect all fragments in holistic image. And when i told about border facts, i told about holistic borders their facts, not about fragments. Fragments can be, all things are consist of particles, but the END of everything thing always IT's holistic form.
So, the answer your question: everything has the END in it's holistic completed form. Only unbroken things have the end.
Also as only broken things have the beginning.
