Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "the house is white" and "the house is not white" are mutually exclusive.
Korsgaard argues that the Practical Contradiction Interpretation is the correct interpretation. She further argues that there are two ways a maxim may violate the formula of universal law: The first contradiction test: A maxim fails the first contradiction test if it cannot even be universalized without a contradiction.
Kant summed up his thoughts on this topic in a short footnote that appeared in the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, B141. He had been discussing the definition of judgment in general. Logicians had usually defined it as a relation between two concepts. Kant disagreed because, he claimed, only categorical judgments are so defined.
Universalizing a maxim (statement) leads to it being valid, or to one of two contradictions—a contradiction in conception (where the maxim, when universalized, is no longer a viable means to the end) or a contradiction in will (where the will of a person contradicts what the universalisation of the maxim implies).
This is a contradiction because if it were a universal action, no person would lend money anymore as he knows that he will never be paid back. The maxim of this action, says Kant, results in a contradiction in conceivability [clarify] (and thus contradicts perfect duty). With lying, it would logically contradict the reliability of language.
The expressions "law of non-contradiction" and "law of excluded middle" are also used for semantic principles of model theory concerning sentences and interpretations: (NC) under no interpretation is a given sentence both true and false, (EM) under any interpretation, a given sentence is either true or false.
According to Kant's principle of reason, everything that is conditioned is part of a total series of conditions. The essential nature of reason tries to find something unconditioned that functions as a beginning of the series. But Schopenhauer claimed that the demand is only for a sufficient reason or ground. It extends merely to the ...
Kant begins from common-sense moral reason and shows by analysis the supreme moral law that must be its principle. He then argues that the supreme moral law in fact obligates us. The book is famously difficult, [ citation needed ] and it is partly because of this that Kant later, in 1788, decided to publish the Critique of Practical Reason .