Questions tagged [principle-of-non-contradiction]

Filter by
Sorted by
Tagged with
0
votes
0answers
22 views

On the Difference between Non-Difference and Dialetheism

Regarding insightful feedback to my answer to Can a category of non-difference exist in Western logic? and in conjunction with alternative responses, I am asking if the following formulation is a ...
3
votes
3answers
342 views

Can a category of non-difference exist in Western logic?

Indian philosophy has a logical category of non-difference (related somewhat to abheda) in which something is different from something else but identical to it as well. An example is that of the the ...
1
vote
1answer
42 views

Relationship between Principle of sufficient reason and Law of identity [closed]

I have an intuition that one can derive the principle of sufficient reason from the law of identity or non-contradiction but i don't know how. If someone knows I'd like some help.
14
votes
12answers
11k views

Why is it that the statement “All goblins are yellow” does not contradict the statement “All goblins are pink?”

From what I know, I think it has something to do with vacuous truths, but my understanding is not quite there yet.
1
vote
2answers
61 views

Why law of identity is formulated in terms of “things” and not statements?

The law of non-contradiction (LNC) and law of excluded middle (LEM) are both formulated in terms of statements. That is "A and not A" is always false and "A or not A" is always ...
0
votes
0answers
74 views

Does S5 modal logic system Entails contradiction?

Almeida in his article A new cosmological argument undone writes: Assume for reductio ad absurdum that q is a contingently necessary proposition. (5∗) MLq & M∼Lq. Assumption But it follows ...
0
votes
0answers
56 views

Is contingency necessary or possibly necessary have defined in S5?And is S5 entails contradiction?

Almeida in his article A new cosmological argument undone writes: Assume for reductio ad absurdum that q is a contingently necessary proposition. (5∗) MLq & M∼Lq. Assumption But it follows ...
2
votes
4answers
258 views

Can we know that law of non contradiction is true a priori?

I have seen some arguments for why should we accept law of non contradiction, and it seems to works in almost all areas. But some argument for it is like an argument for principle "nothing comes from ...
5
votes
4answers
219 views

Where did Suárez say the principle of non-contradiction does not apply to the Trinity?

Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., says, in Le Sens du Mystère et le Clair-Obscur Intellectuel: Nature et Surnaturel p. 128 fn. 1 (Engl. transl. p. 142 fn. 41): St. Thomas never would have ...
4
votes
3answers
384 views

How do Thomists prove that: “Everything that exists must exist by something.”?

One variation of principle of sufficient reason that Thomists use is: Everything that exists must exist by something. How do they prove such a statement? In particular, why can not something just ...