{"id":10374,"date":"2011-09-08T14:48:03","date_gmt":"2011-09-08T14:48:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2011\/09\/08\/all-is-impermanent-impermanence-and-self-reference\/"},"modified":"2011-09-08T14:48:03","modified_gmt":"2011-09-08T14:48:03","slug":"all-is-impermanent-impermanence-and-self-reference","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2011\/09\/08\/all-is-impermanent-impermanence-and-self-reference\/","title":{"rendered":"All is Impermanent? Impermanence and Self-Reference"},"content":{"rendered":"

I have long been fascinated by forms of philosophical refutation that exploit the overt or covert self-reference of a thesis. To warm up, consider<\/span><\/p>\n

   1. All generalizations are false.<\/span><\/p>\n

Since (1) is a generalization, (1) refers to itself. So if (1) is true, then (1) is false. On the other hand, if (1) is false, as it surely is, then (1) is false. Therefore, necessarily (1) is false. It follows that the negation of (1), namely, Some generalizations are true<\/em>, is not just true, but necessarily true. (1) is self-refuting and its negation is self-verifying.  Some generalizations are true <\/em>is an instance of itself which shows that it itself is true: one instance suffices to verify a particular generalization.<\/span><\/p>\n

There are those who dismiss arguments like this as quick and facile. Some even call them 'sophomoric,' presumably because any intelligent and properly caffeinated sophomore can grasp them — as if that could constitute a valid objection. I see it differently. The very simplicity of such arguments is what makes them so powerful. A simple argument with few premises and few inferential moves offers few <\/span>opportunities to go wrong. Here, then, is a case where simplex sigillum veri<\/em>, where simplicity is the seal of truth.  Now consider a more philosophically interesting example, one beloved by Buddhists:<\/span><\/p>\n

   2. All is impermanent.<\/span><\/p>\n

(2) applies to itself: if all<\/em> is impermanent, then (2), or rather the propositional content thereof, is impermanent. That could mean one of two things. Either the truth-value of the proposition expressed by (2) is subject to change, or the proposition itself is subject to change, perhaps by becoming a different proposition with a different sense, or by passing out of existence altogether.  (There is also a stronger reading of 'impermanent' according to which the impermanent is not merely subject to change, but changing.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Note also that if (2) is true, then every part of (2)'s propositional content is impermanent. Thus the property (concept) of impermanence is impermanent, and so is the copulative tie and the universal<\/span>
quantifier. If the property of impermanence is impermanent, then so is the property of permanence along with the distinction between permanence and impermanence.<\/span><\/p>\n

In short, (2), if true, undermines the very contrast that gives it a determinate sense. If true, (2) undermines the permanence\/impermanence  contrast. For if all is impermanent, then so is this contrast and this distinction. This leaves us wondering what sense (2) might have and whether in the end it is not nonsense.<\/span><\/p>\n

What I am arguing is not just that (2) refutes itself in the sense that it proves itself false, but refutes itself in the much stronger  sense of proving itself meaningless or else proving itself on the brink of collapsing into meaninglessness.<\/span><\/p>\n

No doubt (2) is meaningful  'at first blush.' But all it takes is a few preliminary pokes and its starts collapsing in upon itself.<\/span><\/p>\n

Michael Krausz ("Relativism and Beyond: A Tribute to Bimal Matilal" in Bilimoria and Mohanty, pp. 93-104) arrives at a similar result by a different route. He writes:<\/span><\/p>\n

     Paradoxically, because all things are contexted, the idea of<\/span>
     permanence cannot be permanent. But it does not follow that in the<\/span>
     end all things are impermanent either, for impermanence too is<\/span>
     contexted and it too finally drops out of any fixed constellation<\/span>
     of concepts. (101)<\/span><\/p>\n

Krausz invokes the premise,<\/span><\/p>\n

   3. All things are contexted.<\/span><\/p>\n

Krausz writes as if (3) is unproblematic. But surely it too 'deconstructs' itself. Just apply the same reasoning to (3) that we applied to (2). Clearly, (3) is self-referential. So (3) cannot express an invariant structure of being. It cannot be taken to mean, context-independently, that every being qua being is contexted.<\/span><\/p>\n

Note also that if (3) is true, then every part of (3)'s propositional content is contexted: the universal quantifier, the concept thing<\/em>, the  copulative tie, and the concept of being contexted are all contexted. <\/span>What's more, the very contrast of the context-free and the context-bound is contexted.<\/span><\/p>\n

In short, (3), if true, undermines the very contrast that confers upon it a determinate sense, namely, the contrast between the context-free and the context-bound. For if all is contexted, then so is this <\/span>contrast and this distinction.<\/span><\/p>\n

(3) collapses in upon itself and perishes for want of a determinate sense. And the same goes for all its parts. Copulative Being collapses into indeterminacy along with every other sense of Being: the   existential, the identitative, the veritative, the locative, the class-theoretic. Being ends up with no structure at all. If Being and Thinking are one, as Father Parmendides had it, then the collapse of<\/span>
Being brings Thinking down with it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Clearly, we are sinking into some seriously deep shit here, and it is of the worst kind: the formless kind, crap that won't own up to its own crapiness, the kind that deconstructionists, whether Continental <\/span>or Asian, like to serve up. It is stuff so unstable that one cannot even say that it stinks. Do we really want to wallow in this mess?<\/span><\/p>\n

Wouldn't it be better to admit that there is an Absolute?<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I have long been fascinated by forms of philosophical refutation that exploit the overt or covert self-reference of a thesis. To warm up, consider    1. All generalizations are false. Since (1) is a generalization, (1) refers to itself. So if (1) is true, then (1) is false. On the other hand, if (1) is … Continue reading “All is Impermanent? Impermanence and Self-Reference”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[269,75,113,204],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10374","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-buddhism","category-impermanence","category-logica-utens","category-time-and-change"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10374","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10374"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10374\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10374"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10374"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10374"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}