Being, Epistemology, Logic, Ontology

On the Law of Noncontradiction

by Dave Seng

The law of noncontradiction states that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. Put more formally, “A” can not be “B” at the same time and in the same relationship. The first part of the law is pretty straight forward. A fish can not be a cat or a frog can not be a table, at least at the same time. Being can not be nonbeing at the same time. Opposites can not be true at the same time and in the same relationship. It is contradictory to say that nonbeing is being at the same time. Contradictories can not both be true. One must be false, while the other is true.

Sometimes, however, the relationship part of the law is not understood. For example, I can be both a father and a son at the same time but not in the same relationship. I am my father’s son, and my son’s father but those are different relationships. Further, I can be my son’s biological father but not my son’s legal father if he were to be legally adopted. That, too, is a different relationship.

A basic feature of reality is that opposites can not exist in the same way and same relationship.

Because the law of noncontradiction is a basic property of being (reality), we learn that it is foundational to a proper understanding of metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology (theory of knowledge). Truth is clarified when the law on noncontradiction is properly understood.

The law of noncontradiction is a metaphysical first principle because it speaks to basic nature of reality. It helps us understand what is or is not so.

The law of noncontradiction is an ontological first principle because it points to the act or type of being a thing is–what can or can not be.

The law of noncontradiction is an empistemological first principle because it tells us what can or can not be known.

Finally, the law of noncontradiction helps us determine what is true and false, because opposites can not both be true. At the most fundamental level one statement or act of being can not be both true and false at the same time and same relationship.

Logic, Ontology, Uncategorized

Mortimer Adler on The Correspondence Theory of Truth

by Dave Seng

I do not remember when I first learned learned that the laws of logic are properties of being but they are, nonetheless, intuitively and metaphysically correct. Mortimer Adler provides a clue for why this is the case as he connects the law of noncontradiction with the correspondence theory of truth (truth is that which corresponds to reality):

The correspondence theory asserts (1) that there is a reality independent of the mind, and (2) that truth (or, what is the same thing, knowledge) exists in the mind when the mind agrees with, conforms or corresponds to, that independent reality. When what I assert agrees with the way things really are, my assertions are true; otherwise they are false. . . . The principle of noncontradiction is both an ontological principle (the principle that contradictories cannot coexist in reality) as well as a logical rule (the rule that thinking cannot be correct if it is self-contradictory).

Mortimer J. Adler, Intellect: Mind over Matter (New York: Macmillan, 1990), 98 – 99.

The law of noncontradiction is both a property of being (ontology) and logic (correct reasoning) which is perhaps one reason why it is true (corresponds to reality).

Intellectual History, Logic, Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

The Pre-Socratics: What Have We Learned?

by Dave Seng

For this post, we will conclude our series on the pre-Socratics and the problem of the one and the many.

Part one can be found here, part two here, and part three here.

I want to provide a short summary of what we have learned about the metaphysical thinking of the pre-Socratics and provide a short note about what I have in mind for the next couple of essays.

In our recent series exploring the intellectual contributions of the pre-Socratics, we focused on the ancient problem of the one and the many (what I will call the one-many problem, OMP). The OMP is the underlying theme of Western metaphysics. When philosophers examine the intelligible along with the sensible, the definite and infinite, the universal and particular, the nature of change, or the role of the state and the individual, the question of the OMP is always underneath the inquiry.

As we have seen, the OMP is central to Being, Nonbeing, Becoming, and the nature of change in the physical world. In this sense, metaphysics is closely related to physics. (One of the best books on this topic is Roger Trigg’s Beyond Matter: Why Science Needs Metaphysics.)

We also learned that the OMP is a question that relates to the nature, character, and origin of the cosmos. The earliest philosophers where exploring the metaphysical foundations of the universe as they looked for the source of Being and the nature of Becoming in our world. The field of metaphysics seeks to discover, explicate, and lay out the most basic principles and properties of the world (and all of Being) and the pre-Socratics were the first ones to apply reason and develop this method. Since it is impossible to deny that something such as the universe is, the next question is, “is it one or many?” Errors occur when either unity or the many is made primary. We also saw that the pre-Socratics were the first to apply the laws of logic, such as the law of identity and the law of noncontradiction, to the nature of reality (the Being-Becoming relationship) and discovered the metaphysical emphasis of the laws of logic. The OMP only makes sense in a world governed by logic, order, and uniformity in the natural world and the pre-Socratics understood this point. It is also the reason Aristotle focuses so much of his attention on it in his Physics.

Although it not always explicit in every philosopher, the OMP is the underlying central metaphysical concern of much of Western intellectual history. In the next couple of essays, we will discover how the OMP leads Plato to the discovery of form and how it enlightens Aristotle in his doctrines of immanent form, change, act, and potency.

Logic, Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

Addendum: Being, Cosmology, and the Principle of Simplicity

by Dave Seng

Nothing comes from nothing. – Lucretius

[Note: I will follow up on my post regarding the problem of the one and the many soon. Before I do that, however, I wanted to develop this excursus regarding the question of cosmology and the principle of simplicity a little more.]

One of the greatest questions of Being (all of reality) is how it all started. What philosophers call Being, however, does not strictly mean physical nature as it can include abstract ideas such as mental concepts, consciousness, aesthetic theories, human rights, mathematical axioms and formulas, emotions and intuition, moral goods and the like. Being includes both concrete physical objects and immaterial entities. Nonetheless, the question about the cause of existence is central to the study of Being. Martin Heidegger believed that the question, “why is there anything rather than nothing?” is the most important and foundational question of all philosophical inquiry. Another way of looking at this question is what is known as cosmology. Cosmology is the investigation of theories regarding the explanation, nature, origin, and development of the universe. Many philosophers and cosmologists are interested in “first cause” types of theories or arguments. This line of thought explores whether or not there is an ultimate cause of all events and existence, which logically does not itself have a cause.

Philosophers, such as Aristotle and Aquinas, believed that the basic elements of the universe—time and motion—were eternal. They did believe in a “first cause,” but their first cause was the greatest in a hierarchy of causes and realms of being. Plato was one of the first philosophers to articulate the idea that the universe must have a temporal starting point.

In light of our expanding cosmos and what scientists tell us about cosmic background radiation, it would seem that Plato is closer to the truth. Most cosmologists and physicists today believe that the universe had some kind of beginning. One widely acknowledged possibility of the origin of the universe is the “Big Bang” theory. This theory is a cosmological model which states the present hypothesized expanding universe has resulted from an explosion of concentrated matter (the point of singularity) fifteen or twenty billion years ago. All space, time, and matter are a result of that initial detonation.

Of course, the Big Bang hypothesis raises some questions. In a common sense and scientific understanding of reality, which assumes cause and effect relationships, what caused the Big Bang? What caused the cause of the Big Bang? What caused the highly concentrated matter to exist in the first place? Why did it suddenly defy the laws of inertia? These are some big questions given the principle of causality—the basic belief that every physical thing or event that comes into being is caused by virtue of something outside itself. In other words, the principle of causality is the idea that every contingent thing (things which are dependent for their existence on something else) comes into being by something external to it.

Philosophers and cosmologists have addressed these questions in two basic ways. On one hand, some have explored the possibility of an infinite regression, the idea that what caused the cause of the Big Bang produces a series of causes that recede into infinity. Others, however, have investigated the evidence which suggests a significant possibility that the universe has a real actual first cause and definitive starting point in space and time. Logically, the answer must be one or the other—either an infinite series of events or an actual first cause.

Philosophers are still debating this ancient question and have come up with some very complex reasoning about whether an infinite series is possible or not. At this point in the conversation, however, I think it is worthwhile to apply the law of noncontradiction and the principle of simplicity to these questions. The law of noncontradiction states that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. Applied to the Big Bang model, which claims that a single compressed piece of matter and energy spontaneously created the universe from nothing violates the law of noncontradiction. The universe, in the point of singularity, would have had to exist prior to the detonation. It would have to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect which is impossible. It can not be and not be at the same time. Furthermore, nothing is not an entity. In philosophical terms nothing has no existence or being whatsoever—it does not exist, it is not a thing, it has no ontological properties, it has no potential. One can not even think of nothing because to think of it is to think of something. Because nothing is “not a thing” it has no causal powers. “Nothing,” as Martin Luther once quipped, “is not a little something.” To exist or “to be” means to stand out of nothing. Self-creation of contingent things is impossible which is why we don’t see it in our everyday experience. As many philosophers throughout history have stated, “nothing comes from nothing.”

Given the force of the principle of causality and the law of noncontradiction, we have a very good reason to apply the principle of simplicity with regard to the origin of the universe. The principle of simplicity states that one explanation ought to be preferred over another by virtue of its employment of fewer and/or simpler ideas. Many philosophers accept the notion that the simplest explanation that makes sense out of most of the facts is the best. It would seem, then, that since a self-created universe is impossible (employing the law of noncontradiction), the simpler theory, and one to be preferred, is one of an actual temporal First Cause. God must exist as the ultimate cause of the contingent, physical universe. Any attempt to show the possibility or impossibility of an infinite series of causes neglects the law of noncontradiction, leaves unanswered the questions of how the series started due to the fact that all events have antecedent causes (do the laws of inertia apply to an infinite series?), and how the condensed matter and energy came into existence in the first place, which is the entire question at hand.

The idea that the cosmic evidence points to a divine creator is certainly not new. It is, however, important and significant. It is the logical implication of the principle of causality, the law of noncontradiction, and the principle of simplicity. Taken together, we find that a First Cause makes the most sense out of the given data and unifies our experience of reality both simply and profoundly.