OK Kelly..this one is for you....as I pointed out, a paradox is a construct of thought...a failure in reason...it is not a thing...even such as an idea is.
Once a paradox is understood, it ceases to be a paradox. You say that Life is a paradox because it is at once good and horrible so lets examine that to see if the paradox dissolves...you cant really say that the whole of life is good and bad, in that sense, because you are essentially speaking of 'moments' in time and with each given moment, it will, by subjective definition, be good or bad...so by saying that it is both good and bad, you do so with the unspoken understanding that you are referring to good moments and bad moments. As with people, you refer to good traits and bad traits and not a good/bad trait. Yeah, a thing can seem paradoxial but for that thing to exist, it must have an explanation and the paradox isnt it...when the explanation is known, the paradox ceases.

But regarding 'moments' in time, life can be both bad and good at the same time from different perspectives.
Yes, I know the concepts of bad and good are just human words for human experiences, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as a bad experience or a good one.
And for some people, life is good. And for some, life is bad.
Sometimes life is bittersweet. Experiences can be both good and bad at the same time.
Lol...I'm trying to come up with specific examples, but I think I know how you'd break them down into the "good" parts and the "bad" ones, separating the issues, and rendering them unparadoxical.

Ok. How about God?
Can a God that allows so much suffering be good?

To answer, I suppose, you must set the limits and conditions and then answer within that context. As you word it, no.

Lol..ok. I think I know what you mean.
Well, let's use the famous time travel paradox.
Suppose you go back in time and kill your grandfather.
This should be impossible, right?
Do you think that there is no possible way this could happen?

Hey TuTu, how about that physics paradox thing where light seems to be a wave and a particle stream at the same time?

Is that because when you measure it, it's considered one or the other depending on how you're measuring, but not both at the same time? Because the measuring makes it one or the other, even if it's only for a very short amount of time?

Again Kelly, this only a paradox because we fail to understand how it could be possible for you to kill your grandfather before he sired your parent..there are some theories which present solutions and if any of them are correct then it is a paradox no longer. My favorite (my own, I think, unless another thinks along the same lines) is that all events in Time (movement through space as I like to think of it) are finite occurances meshing into an eternal (time wise) and infinite (space wise) stream but because space itself is without direction, or direction is only subjectively dependant upon time, any finite event will cease to exist..period...given that, you can never move back in time to the same event which previously occupied that finite area of space at that time..were you to travel back to that finite area (and even at this, you would still be moving only forward in a progression of finite events covering an area of finite space), the event termed 'your grandfather' would have ceased to exist and what ever event now constituted 'your grandfather' would no longer be present in that space. So my answer is 'no' it is not possible and the paradox does not exist.



IMO, SG, a wave and a particle are definitions of two different observed states...in one state, the particle acts like a wave and in another like a particle...can it be both a particle and a wave? The principle of contradiction states that a thing can not be one thing and not be that one thing at the same time...in other words, you couldnt say that a particle is a particle and yet not a particle...you can say that a particle is a particle and is a wave according to this principle if both particle and wave indicate two distinct things....so a particle can be a particle and a wave at the same time but these two definition of things seemingly contradict one another and so a paradox present itself...a particle cant be a wave because a wave is not a particle and a particle can be a particle and not a particle...again, there are explanations to resolve the paradox and if any be true...and there must be a true explanation even if yet unknown...then the paradox no longer exists in thought.

The paradox is only a failure to understand what is truly happening and how it is possible...it is a mental construct.

Huh...I'm kinda reaching here, I admit, but what about darkness?
It seems to be a thing that both exists and does not exist. Darkness is only the absence of light. The absence of light is a thing that does not "exist" in the proper sense, yet it does at the same time.

Darkness is not a thing, such as Light is (light has physical properties) but is mental concept which, called a logical being, only exists in and is utterly dependant upon the mind which concieves it...darkness is the absence of the real thing (light) but is a necessary mental construct because our minds reason in terms of 'that which is, is and that which is not, is not' In other words, we understand (reason with) light by contrasting it to that which it is not. Light can not be light and darkness at the same time AND darkness only exists in the mind and not in the same sphere (the physical realm) as Light.

Hmmm...I'm not doing very well at this...lol...
Ok. I give up.
I guess you're right....lol...
Come to think of it, even Schrodinger's Cat either exists or doesn't.
For some reason I'm taken by the mental image of a black and white image printed in a way that looks grey in places from a distance, but upon closer inspection is made of little black dots and white spaces, creating the illusion of grey.
I guess reality is kind of like a bianary system where things either exist or don't.
I'll keep thinking of a way to argue. Maybe I'll come up with something good around midnight...lol...

lol well so long as its before tomorrow...as I'm back to work then...seriously though, you've had me turning in circles lol

So, there can't be any paradoxes, it's just humans not understanding what they're seeing?

Like with light, naming waves waves and particle streams streams of particles, those are just two made-up classifications to try and pidgeonhole observed phenom. And when we look closer and see a paradox, that means there's something ineffective about our classification system, it doesn't mean, hooray, we've finally found a paradox.

Means we need to call it something else, like maybe, the unique behavior of the stuff we glibly, generally call "light".

I think that's what TuTu is saying, right?

Okay, I can buy that. It's kind of about cognition and its verbage, not about facts being contradictory.

Hey...philosophy is fun! This is philosophy, right? :confused: :laugh:

LOL!
Yes, this is some weird kind of philosophy, I think.

One more, 22.
Does love exist?

lol its not weird, its ontological philosophy...the root of all philosophy...which draws inquiry into the most basic nature of existence...the nature of being and not being...only the nature of being exists, the nature of not-being does not exist but as an abstract concept only, enabling us to ponder and sometimes comprehend the nature of being....

What is Love? An emotion? A motivation for an act? An act itself? Of the three, which one exists?

I'm asking you!

Oh, and if "not being" doesn't exist, how come we're discussing it?

Well, Kelly, are emotions real things? Are motivations? Acts? If any or all of the three denote Love, then yes, love exists.

'Not being' is a contrast to being...otherwise, 'not being' would be termed 'being' and would therefore, exist...still rendering the contrast 'not being' non-existant lol

Hmmm...are emotions real things?

And if "not being" is a contrast, and a contrast is a real thing, then couldn't "not being" become "being" by virtue of being a contrast, which is a thing that can exist?

no a contrast is an existant 'thing'...its called a logical being...not a real being..meaning arising out of the mind and confined to the mind...now, a thing can not be and 'not-be' at the same time...if a thing is denoted by 'not-be' then it is, by this denotation, non-existant

So is an emotion a real thing or a "logical being"?
I know the biochemical changes that accompany the emotion are definitelt real things, but what of the emotion in it's purest, most simple form?

I would say that emotion is a logical being existing in the mind...outside of the creatural mind, it does not exist...it is not a real being..but then, too, all real beings may simply be the logical beings of one super-mind