Something I wrote recently in my English Language class:
• Almost everything seems to have contradiction, and usually these contradictions hinder an idea because of their oscillating pattern of agreeing and disagreeing. According to Aristotle, “the law of contradiction may also belong to logic as the principle of demonstration†(162). This idea supposes that contradiction does not work because it is too logical, like many sciences, and it displays the idea of illusion within most sciences, which is barely seen since most is deducted superficially through empirical data demonstrate ideas that “proven.†However, if contradiction seems to be instilled in almost everything, in exception to metaphysics, then it seems that logicality is deceitful or that the ideas derived through logicality are not fully understood. If something is not fully understood, then it cannot be really proven, because there is still more left to discover. Perhaps this is because truth cannot be derived completely through physical experimentation, and that the metaphysical is needed to define and exhibit truth.
(The reason I wrote that metaphysics does not exhibit contradiction is because it itself analyzes contradictions, and because of this it is not really contradictory. The ideas derived from metaphysics may be controversial, but the pure form of metaphysics in general does not seem too. The ideas formed through metaphysics are not metaphysics, they are ideas, the products of metaphysics but not essentially metaphysics since metaphysics seems to be the study of ideas, nature, seemingly everything that is profound. And everything I said here is probably controversial, because it is an idea I thought of, and everything seems controversial just like everything seems to be an argument, except the pure such as metaphysics.)
What do you think of this idea, and do any of you have any other thoughts on metaphysics?
Contradiction is non-conformity, a sign of limitlessness, which is the enemy of logical prediction.
“Contradiction” may exist in a man’s mind, when his expectations are not met, but an instance cannot contradict itself, it can simply and optionally actuate potentiality of some sort.
If, after thousands of years of one sort of behavior, instance should actuate another behavior, then man would say: “It has broken a law.” But, it has no law, and man merely had his expectation for it.
Ideas can contradict and transcent other ideas, and, a person can live by more than one principal. His appearant self-contradiction, is merely his unpredictability.
“Contradiction” may be, in fact, at the source, a format of personal failure to predict.
I was reminded by your writing of the following passage:
“Heraclitus has as his royal property the highest power of intuitive conception, whereas towards the other mode of conception which is consummated by ideas and logical combinations, that is towards reason, he shows himself cool, apathetic, even hostile, and he seems to derive a pleasure when he is able to contradict reason by means of a truth gained intuitively, and this he does in such propositions as: “Everything has always its opposite within itself,” so fearlessly that Aristotle before the tribunal of reason accuses him of the highest crime, of having sinned against the law of opposition.”
[Nietzsche, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, section 5.] http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/ptra.htm
“Everything has always its opposite within itself,”
There is a difference between an “opposite” – and the means of balance/completion.
A balanced combination of positive and negative electrons – does not exactly have to portray any sort of “opposite”, until a human brain basically breaks appart, and classifies that which is whole, claiming that, of the who parts of the whole, one is “opposite” of the other. And, of the “two” parts, there are many many other parts. They are only lone, seporate parts, when the mind focuses on them whilst ignoring or being ignorant to that which supports and is connected to the parts.
Seporateness seen without, may just be a sign of incompleteness within.