Paradoxes and Ironies

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

How can killing, cheating, and stealing be immoral, when all life (from humans to wolves to bacteria) is a matter of killing, cheating, and stealing?

How can “wastefulness” as a lifestyle (such as a stereotypical American might be depicted) be considered harmful to the global economy, when this same wastefulness is precisely that which allows a global economy to exist in the first place?
For example, the more we recycle aluminum, the less money aluminum miners/manufacturers will make. The more we rely on renewable energy sources, the less money coal miners will make.
Demonstrating this same effect: When Americans have the mentality “buy American-made products to help the USA economy”, it damages the economies of countries such as China who’s economy relies a great deal on exports to America – and this will ultimately end up damaging the economy of America as well.

How can money be considered “evil”, when without it industrialized, technologically advanced civilization would not be able to exist, and the world would be far more savage, barbaric, and “evil”. We could almost say that the advent of monetary currency is precisely what allowed mankind to escape evil.

Couldn’t perspectivism be considered a synonym for hypocrisy?

How can it be immoral to judge others, when assumptions and judgments must be made about other people in order for communication with them to be at all possible?

How can arguing be considered negative, when it is the most effective means for addressing and solving problems?

How do we differentiate between “laziness and self-deception” versus “lack of willpower and lack of physical resources required for productivity”?

For example, leftists will view their body (and in severe incidents, their own mind) as being a dynamic system that operates of its own accord and by its own rules, and is beyond control – but if it is our own expectations of ourselves that eventually become ourselves, then their belief in regards to how their body/mind operates could only be as true as they let it be. Just as an example, “Charlie, why don’t you clean your room?” “I can’t mom, I’m too tired!”

How can grammar and the various rules of language be advocated, when they contradict themselves and collapse upon themselves? Rhetorically, we can find contradictions in the words, syntax, and grammar of any given sentence. As such, how can “tone” or “complexity” between individuals really indicate anything more than the individual having more or less synchronicity with a population’s paradigm? For example, an “intellectual tone” (which can often be seen on this very forum) does not truly indicate intelligence, but instead merely sets the mood for discussion – or sets the intended mindset for the reader.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

As Nietzsche said “I fear we are not getting rid of God because we still believe in grammar.”

Aren’t the commonly listed “logical fallacies” really just fallacies themselves?
Ad Hominem is really just imposing questions on an individual’s credibility. Also, isn’t there many frequent examples of “ad hominem” that go unchecked or unnoticed?
For example, “that man said that pharmaceutical drugs are bad for you, and he has a doctorate in medicine” - a doctorate in medicine is usually accepted as a firm source of credibility. However, whether or not pharmaceutical drugs are actually bad for a person does not depend on the level of education of whoever made the claim.
And on the contrary, we could also logically justify what are normally considered Ad Hominem; For example:
Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”
This is a logically justifiable Ad Hominem. And if we still consider it a fallacy, then we would also have to consider the above correlation between “having a doctorate in medicine” and “claiming that pharmaceutical drugs are bad for a person” to be a fallacy.
Ad Hominem is really just an inquisition of an individual’s credibility.

Even seemingly irrelevant correlations in an ad hominem could be logically justified, such as
Bill: “I think abortion is okay and should be legal”
Dave: “Shut up you fatty!”
The above example is really just an inquisition regarding Bill’s ability to make healthy, well-informed decisions. Since he is overweight and he has not been able to make healthy decisions with regards to himself, his credibility is lessened when giving his opinion regarding other people’s health and well-being.

Paradoxes, Ironies, and Contradictions of Logic surround us everywhere.

2

Cooperation cannot be a byproduct of motivation arising solely from self interest?

Wastefulness is measurable and, although contentious, man-made. Man extracts coal and uses the end product to stimulate growth and progress. Man must find new job after the home of man is slowly destroyed and will be unable to sustain life.

3

Then why would mothers take care of their children? Where is the self interest there?
The Will to Live extends beyond self-interest

But my point is, wastefulness is far more beneficial to an economy than it is harmful.

4

eh i agree and disagree with that. it’s pretty hard to argue universal right and wrongs(right and wrongs regarding society as a whole)…and pointless
maybe you’re looking at certain things a little too skin deep

but i’ll just address the one i have feelings on

perspectivism is most certaintly a synonym for biased but, when it comes down to it, i wouldnt say hypocrisy

“i am experiencing this perspective therefor i only want what is best for this perspective and dont care much about yours” sounds reasonable to me :smiley:

5

that’s exactly what it is. cooperation is when a group of two or more people come together because they share a common goal (one ultimately derived from self interest)

and beyond that theres the case of people having a misplaced sense of priority

6

are…are you arguing against yourself? :-k

anyways (and this is arguing for your original post) ‘me and mine’ is an extention of self interest

7

That fails to explain phenomena such as motherhood

8

This is commonly accepted linguistics 101.

The rules of grammar are derived from how we commonly speak and write - they are there to explain why sentences like “I very like cabbages” sound incorrect to native speakers. The study of grammar normally involves some study of the register of different structures, for example the sentence ‘It was me that stole your keys’ is considered acceptable spoken grammar, but ‘incorrect’ in academic English.

When we speak or write, we use the register that is appropriate for the audience. Some argue that as register gets more formal, the rules get more and more strict to cope with more and more specific language. Academic English, for example, tends to be highly specific and so a concrete set of rules is often needed. But even these rules change over time (though more slowly than spoken grammar)

Nobody has ever advocated the rules of grammar as absolute or unquestionable rules. They have always been thought of exactly how you described. Apart from a few annoying idiots who, when you say something like ‘Me and my friend are going to the pub’ say ‘I think you’ll find it’s supposed to be “my friend and I”’. Some people’s brains are too limited to cope with the fact that grammatical correctness is a relative thing - the safest bet is just not to tell them where you’re going in the first place.

9

What’s kinda funny is that in Spanish, occasionally double negatives meant as a single negative are correct. “No quiero nada” for example: I don’t want nothing. It literally means I don’t want anything. It’s a double negative, meant as a single negative, and it’s correct. Strange…

10

The economic interactions that in turn stimulate wastefulness may only exist insofar as there is a physical environment in which these transactions may occur. Raping the land through wastefulness will ultimately destroy any form of advanced economy.

11

Now that’s a real stretch! :laughing:

Sorry. :-"

I agree. I love finding them as well. Nice thread. I wish my power of recall was better, so I could contribute. Maybe next time I notice something I’ll remember to visit and contribute.

12

Abstrusely, this could explain the phenomena of motherhood. What is a child if it is not a biological extension of individual identity into the vast realm of the unknown. I feel that motherhood is indeed a cooperative endeavor – the child’s selfish desire to survive, compounded with the parent’s recognition of mortality and desire to cheat it. Both are motivated by self interest and they coalesce into a cooperative interaction.

13

Isn’t it a great irony that an economy based on creating waste and destruction in order to sustain itself will end up killing the people who use it because too much destruction and waste will create the conditions that are harmful to life?

14

An irony and a constant source of personal frustration and despair.

15

So true. But… only when you let it prey on your mind. There is always escapism.

16

Escape is certainly a possibility however I find it in such close proximity to impossibility.

17

It probably could by some rationale, sure. But how do you mean? A perspectivist does not believe in objective values, yet acts as if he does?

That, to me, is part of perspectivism – the perspectivist must determine the best way to live his life in absence of absolute truth. I guess that can lead to a somewhat pragmatic approach, but that which is considered practical is not necessarily considered ‘truth’, just sufficient.

Grammar is not universal or absolute in any sense, though it is regarded as such by most. However, Deconstruction seems to oppose the very purpose of grammar. Grammar is representative, to be interpreted, whereas Deconstruction seems to hold grammatical rules as some measure of objective reality. In actuality, grammar is more a measure and preference of culture.

18

edit: ah nevermind I misunderstood

19

in english it works that way, sure. in spanish…i’m not so sure. i’ve never read it written with a comma between “no” and “quiero nada.” I’ve seen it as “no, no quiero nada.” try google searching the phrase both ways. I think you’ll find that there are no results as “no, quiero nada” i’m willing to accept evidence to the contrary, but i’ve looked and have found none.

[edit]
ok

20

Then this ceases to be “self interest” by definition.
Also, why are their parents who would die for their children?
And if it is truly some unconscious desire to cheat mortality by spreading “seed” into the future, then let us consider a hypothetical scenario where a child was castrated for some reason (lets just say, the child’s genitals were severed in an unfortunate accident, or perhaps were afflicted with tumors and had to be amputated) – wouldn’t some parents still sacrifice themselves for this child, even knowing that the bloodline will end?

Now let us say the child was on their deathbed, and a parent sold their house and all their possessions to pay for the child’s medical bills - knowing full-well that it would not cure the child of his/her afflictions but only temporarily alleviate them, and the child would still die within the parent’s lifetime. This certainly would contradict the “offspring as an extension into the future” theory.