Paul Feyerabend

[FDG]

A very clear ENTp, in my opinion. What do you think?

[Phaedrus]

I don't know. But if he is not a Subjectivist, I will consider putting the Reinin dichotomies in the wastepaper basket.

[FDG]

I don't know. But if he is not a Subjectivist, I will consider putting the Reinin dichotomies in the wastepaper basket.

Lol, well, he's probably the most subjectivist, to the point of saying that he's actually not a subjectivist because the stances aren't even taken.

[Phaedrus]

I don't know. But if he is not a Subjectivist, I will consider putting the Reinin dichotomies in the wastepaper basket.

Lol, well, he's probably the most subjectivist, to the point of saying that he's actually not a subjectivist because the stances aren't even taken.

Yes, they are. It's just that Feyerabend doesn't realize (or more accurately doesn't care) that he is contradicting himself.

[FDG]

I don't know. But if he is not a Subjectivist, I will consider putting the Reinin dichotomies in the wastepaper basket.

Lol, well, he's probably the most subjectivist, to the point of saying that he's actually not a subjectivist because the stances aren't even taken.

Yes, they are. It's just that Feyerabend doesn't realize (or more accurately doesn't care) that he is contradicting himself.

Well, he isn't contradicting himself because his stance is that contradiction is necessary. So if he uses this as his base axiom for his philosophy, there it goes.

[Phaedrus]

Well, he isn't contradicting himself because his stance is that contradiction is necessary.

Here you are contradicting yourself. And at the same time you agree with me that he is also contradicting himself.

So if he uses this as his base axiom for his philosophy, there it goes.

Yes, there it goes ... Quod erat demonstrandum: Feyerabend is contradticting himself.

[FDG]

Well, he isn't contradicting himself because his stance is that contradiction is necessary.

Here you are contradicting yourself. And at the same time you agree with me that he is also contradicting himself.

So if he uses this as his base axiom for his philosophy, there it goes.

Yes, there it goes ... Quod erat demonstrandum: Feyerabend is contradticting himself.

You really don't understand what I mean, right?

Axiom 1: Contradiction is necessary

Me says something contradictory. Is this a violation of the axiom? CLEARLY not. The layer of abstraction of the axiom is superior to the first level of contradiction, and therefore you do not contradict the axiom by contradicting yourslef.

I do agree that he contradicts himself FROM YOUR POW, but INTO HIS SYSTEM he DOES NOT. Got it?

[Phaedrus]

You really don't understand what I mean, right?

Yes, I think that I know what you mean.

Axiom 1: Contradiction is necessary

Every contradiction is necessary false -- from every possible point of view.

I do agree that he contradicts himself FROM YOUR POW, but INTO HIS SYSTEM he DOES NOT. Got it?

I understand your point, but Feyerabend hasn't got a system, because you can't build a system from a contradiction. The only "thing" you can build from that is a bunch of bullshit, and that is exactly what Feyerabend has done. He is nothing but a charlatan, whose views are necessarily false.

[FDG]

Oh, but I definitely agree on this, and I never said he wasn't one