Do you accept the Law of Non-contradition as a univeral law that cannot be broken?

Question

If not, do you realize that in denying it you are also affirming it? If a proposition can both be true and also not true at the same time, then you are affirming what you are tying to deny while you deny it. Please explain how why it would be worth saying anything at all if the opposite of what you say is also, at the same time true.

Answer 1

Yes, I see what you are saying.  To deny is to affirm.  

Answer 2

There is always the philosopher's escape plan: Descartes' Evil Demon. Maybe all of our rationality, logic and clever mathematics that we think are 100% right are actually a clever illusion of some sinister phantom who runs the world like puppets on a string?

Therefore, it is concievable that the Law of Non-Contradiction could be broken.

Answer 3

are you trying to ask about the Law of non-contradiction?

That is a term used in logic which, by definition is universal, it has nothing to do with affirmation, or denial.

It merely states that nothing can both have a property and lack it. The whole idea of rationality depends on the law of non-contradiction, since we can only reason from a true belief if that belief cannot also be false.

If you are asking if things can be contradictory .   . . . that is an entirely different question, a good one.

Answer 4

It is a logical fallacy because it invokes a universe of discourse.

Answer 5

Yes, I accept it; that is, I accept the law of non-contradiction as a necessary and sufficient condition for talking sense instead of non-sense.   However, I do like Descartes' "evil demon" counter to this question because given the "self-reference" criticisms that suggest the law of non-contradiction is problematic--affirms and denies at the same time,--the way out of those special circumstances (to escape the contradiction) is to connect the logical argument to the person asking a question that contradicts itself. Perhaps the following will make more sense out of what I am trying to say:

The original idea that there was a pre-condition for self-reference was developed in the symbolic logic of C.I. Lewis. To avoid contradictions such as occur in the Liar and other paradoxes, Lewis developed what he called pragmatic contradiction. It, pragmatic contradiction, treats together the speech and the act of speaking. “This statement is false” cannot be true because it implies, not a restriction against self-reference as Russell said, but because it implies the necessary truth of the contradictory opposite, “There exists at least one true statement.” Starting with a contradiction-free affirmation, the structures of knowledge can then be made to follow in a necessary and systematic fashion. In this way, the closed system problems that arise in mathematics are avoided.

I had no idea. I wondered how  Sir Boga added to his answer and I discovered the edit--never knew. Anyway, after walking my dog, and reflecting on what I just said in my answer here (and, in addition to being a big fan of Lewis Carroll--all arguments in the Alice stories are logically sound), I realized that, yes, the law of logical contradiction is necessary for talking sense, but it is not sufficient. Sorry for my mistake.