The Contradiction Principle demands that all derivations meet its conditions of consistency. But what then is the defending criterion for this celebrated Principle itself?
In Aristotle’s words: ‘The beginning of demonstration cannot [itself] be demonstrated..those who insist on being refuted by argument seek the impossible; for in insisting that they be proven to be self-contradictory, they already contradict themselves..’.
The Principle of Contradiction, the criterion for Logico-Mathematical ‘Proof’, itself has no proof, cannot be proven in a rational framework.
If ‘All things are False’-so is the claim: ‘All things are False!’ If ‘Nothing is True’- so is the declaration: ‘Nothing is True!
But hold on just a second. To say; ‘Nothing is True!’ is not a lie. In fact, I have no idea what it is. For I am firmly in the grip of the Self-Loop.
The principal defense of the Principal Principle, Aristotle’s ‘Self-Destroying Argument’ is contained in a Self-Eating Expression.
Why should you not violate the Principle of Contradiction?
You should not violate the Principle of Contradiction because if you violate the Principle of Contradiction you thereby contradict yourself and thereby violate the Principle of Contradiction.
The Contradiction Principle is intimately related to the assumption of an ‘Independent and Separate Subject’ and from it to the ‘Subject-Object Divide’. The way, the only way to get to its root is to begin at the first presumption of Inquiry, work through the ‘Backward Step’ and wake-up to Śūnyathā.
There is nothing ‘Wrong’ with the Contradiction Principle. But it is good to see it’s modeled basis, it’s root origin. I don’t want to meet a road-sign which says ‘Paris’ with two arrows each pointing in the opposite direction.