Self-refuting idea
A self-refuting idea or self-defeating idea is an idea or statement whose falsehood is a
Variations
Directly self-denying statements
Directly self-denying statements are characterised by being necessarily (or inherently) false.
Indirectly self-denying statements
This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
One form of an indirect self-denying statement is the "Stolen Concept": the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and/or genetically depends. The idea of the "Stolen Concept" is generally attributed to be first noted by Ayn Rand and then later supported by followers of Objectivism. Much like Objectivism the idea of the "Stolen Concept" does not have mainstream acceptance in academia.[3] An example of the stolen concept fallacy is anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's statement, "All property is theft".
While discussing the hierarchical nature of knowledge, Nathaniel Branden states, "Theft" is a concept that logically and genetically depends on the antecedent concept of "rightfully owned property"—and refers to the act of taking that property without the owner's consent. If no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as "theft." Thus, the statement "All property is theft" has an internal contradiction: to use the concept "theft" while denying the validity of the concept of "property," is to use "theft" as a concept to which one has no logical right—that is, as a stolen concept.[4]
Others have said the statement is fallacious only on a superficial reading of Proudhon, devoid of context. Proudhon used the term "property" with reference to claimed ownership in land, factories, etc. He believed such claims were illegitimate, and thus a form of theft from the commons.[5] Proudhon explicitly states that the phrase "property is theft" is analogous to the phrase "slavery is murder". According to Proudhon, the slave, though biologically alive, is clearly in a sense "murdered". The "theft" in his terminology does not refer to ownership any more than the "murder" refers directly to physiological death, but rather both are meant as terms to represent a denial of specific rights.[6]
In logic
Self-refutation plays an important role in some inconsistency tolerant logics (e.g.
Examples
This section possibly contains original research. (August 2009) |
Brain in a vat
Determinism
It has been argued by advocates of libertarian free will that to call determinism a rational statement is doubly self-defeating.[9]
- To count as rational, a belief must be freely chosen, which according to the determinist is impossible
- Any kind of debate seems to be posited on the idea that the parties involved are trying to change each other's minds.
Ethical egoism
It has been argued that extreme
More generally, egoists might say that an increasing respect for
Eliminative materialism
The philosopher Mary Midgley states that the idea that nothing exists except matter is also self-refuting because if it were true neither it, nor any other idea, would exist, and similarly that an argument to that effect would be self-refuting because it would deny its own existence.[13][page needed] Several other philosophers also argue that eliminative materialism is self-refuting.[14][page needed][15][16]
However, other forms of
Evolutionary naturalism
Alvin Plantinga argues in his evolutionary argument against naturalism that the combination of naturalism and evolution is "in a certain interesting way self-defeating" because if it were true there would be insufficient grounds to believe that human cognitive faculties are reliable.[21][page needed] Consequently, if human cognitive abilities are unreliable, then any human construct, which by implication utilizes cognitive faculties, such as evolutionary theory, would be undermined. In this particular case, it is the confluence of evolutionary theory and naturalism that, according to the argument, undermine the reason for believing themselves to be true. Since Plantinga originally formulated the argument, a few theistic philosophers and Christian apologists have agreed.[22][23][page needed] There has also been a considerable backlash of papers arguing that the argument is flawed in a number of ways, one of the more recent ones published in 2011 by Feng Ye[24] (see also the references in the Evolutionary argument against naturalism article).
Foundationalism
The philosopher
Philosophical skepticism
Relativism
It is often stated that
Verification and falsification principles
The statements "statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified" and "statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically falsified" have both been called self-refuting on the basis that they can neither be empirically verified nor falsified.[33] Similar arguments have been made for statements such as "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true", which was a problem for logical positivism.[34]
Moderation In All Things
The perhaps ancient, proverbial saying "all things in moderation" is itself a call to excess in that it commands moderation in every single possible thing. An actually moderate assertion would be something like "most things in moderation" or more precisely, "a moderate number of things in moderation." However, many philosophers use the saying in the context of ethics.
See also
References
- ^ "JP Moreland's Web » Why Strong Scientism is Self-Refuting".
- ^ Russell B, Whitehead A.N., Principia Mathematica
- ISBN 9781119167907.
- ^ The Stolen Concept Archived 2007-05-01 at the Wayback Machine by Nathaniel Branden - originally published in The Objectivist Newsletter in January 1963.
- ^ Rockwell, L. Performative Contradictions and Subtle Misunderstandings
- ^ Proudhon. "What is Property? Proudhon 1840". www.marxists.org. Retrieved 11 March 2018.
- ^ Hewitt, C. “Large-scale Organizational Computing requires Unstratified Reflection and Strong Paraconsistency” Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems III Jaime Sichman, Pablo Noriega, Julian Padget and Sascha Ossowski (ed.). Springer-Verlag. 2008.
- ^ Brains in a vat, Reason, Truth, and History ch. 1, Hilary Putnam
- ^ "Determinism".
Determinism is self-defeating. A determinist insists that both determinists and non-determinists are determined to believe what they believe. However, determinists believe self-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view. But "ought to change" implies they are free to change, which, within the incompatibilist view, is contrary to determinism.
- ^ "Ethics" Britannica.
- S2CID 17655955.
- ^ Julian Simon. "The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment (1996)". Retrieved 2014-03-14.
- ^ See Mary Midgley The Myths we Live by.
- ISBN 978-0-691-07320-0.
- .
- hdl:2027.42/138325.
- ^ Hill, C. "Identity Theory" (PDF).
- ^ Place, U. T. "Identity Theories". In Nanni, Marco (ed.). A Field Guide to the Philosophy of Mind. Società italiana per la filosofia analitica.
To the author a perfect correlation is identity. Two events that always occur together at the same time in the same place, without any temporal or spatial differentiation at all, are not two events but the same event. The mind-body correlations as formulated at present, do not admit of spatial correlation, so they reduce to matters of simple correlation in time. The need for identification is no less urgent in this case.
- ^ "Dictionary of the Philosophy of Mind".
- ^ Moreland, J.P., The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism.
- ^ Alvin Plantinga in Naturalism Defeated?, Ed. James Beilby Cornell University Press, 2002.
- ^ John Polkinghorne is an example of a scientist-theologian who is supportive of Plantinga's position.
- ^ Richard Swinburne is a philosopher that supports and utilizes Plantinga's argument effectively in his book "The Existence of God".
- ^ "NaturalizedTruthAndPlantinga - Feng Ye's Homepage". sites.google.com. Retrieved 11 March 2018.
- ISBN 978-0-19-283067-8. This particular chapter is based on a 1982 lecture which may explain the shift in the meaning of the term "foundationalism" since then.
- ^ Hasan, Ali; Fumerton, Richard (11 March 2018). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 11 March 2018 – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ "The Gallilean Library". Archived from the original on 22 December 2005. Retrieved 11 March 2018.
- ^ Suber, P. Classical Skepticism.
- ^ "Cicero: Academic Skepticism - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". www.iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 11 March 2018.
- ^ "Cognitive Relativism - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". www.iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 11 March 2018.
- ^ The problem of self-refutation is quite general. It arises whether truth is relativized to a framework of concepts, of beliefs, of standards, of practices. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- ^ "If truth is relative, then non-relativist points of view can legitimately claim to be true relative to some standpoints." Westacott, E. On the Motivations for Relativism.
- ISBN 978-0-415-26332-0.
- ^ See e.g. Keith Ward, Is Religion Dangerous? p. 86.