# The truth of contradictory statements **URL:** \ **Category:** Metaphysics & Epistemology\ **Created:** [September 6, 2026, 4:49am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-truth-of-contradictory-statements/2914 "2026-09-06T04:49:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![gridsuru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecccb3/32.png) [@gridsuru](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/gridsuru)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2026, 4:49am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-truth-of-contradictory-statements/2914/1 "2026-09-06T04:49:50Z")
Here is my argument for why dialetheism is true, and where it comes from. I’m sure it could be more articulate. The foundation of dialetheism arises from this: organisms that seek to survive, belief what is true and what is false based on their ‘avoidance’ and ‘attraction’. Any two individuals can be in disagreement, and yet hold beliefs which are completely true. The only certainty is the changing state of the universe. We make predictions when we ‘avoid’, which leads us to ‘attract’. These are motions. I’m thinking that ‘avoidance’ can be defined as matter moving apart, and and ‘attraction’ as matter moving closer together. Organism are fundamentally matter. What are your thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![j\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ab097/32.png) [@j\_j](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/j_j)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2026, 5:37am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-truth-of-contradictory-statements/2914/2 "2026-09-06T05:37:50Z")
> [@gridsuru](#): > > The foundation of dialetheism arises from this: organisms that seek to survive, belief what is true and what is false based on their ‘avoidance’ and ‘attraction’. IMO, this “adaptive organism response” approach leads us beyond the “regime of truth” altogether. The logocentric tendency in philosophy tends to understand belief as “thought stuff” that can be “put into words.” Then this “thought stuff” can “correspond or not” to “objective reality stuff.” But, following pragmatism, I suggest that we understand belief as primarily **non-verbal** conduct. Instead of thought stuff in the pineal gland, belief is the “specificity” of the organism’s **movement** as vulnerable flesh in the world. Animals “crawl and leap” their belief. The “corresponding of thought-stuff or not” is — in my view — significantly “alienated” from our embodied situation in the world. I worry about “bad thought beliefs” only because I worry about my hand being bitten off by a shark. I see Hume as having tried to point out “the brute autonomic empiricism” of our flesh. We cannot “ground” induction in “euclidean” terms. We go about our merry philosophical way, for the most part, without even noticing the fundamental “deductive groundlessness” of the basic sub-neck beliefs that we enact constantly. The search for a “proof” of this or that “system” via “pure mind-stuff logic” is therefore — seems to me — absurd. So I would phrase your point above this way : animals move toward “value feeling” and away from “disvalue feeling.” We can explain this plausibly in terms of an evolved “below-the-neck-ware” that “guides” the animal — probabilistically, imperfectly — toward the successful transmission of its genes. This “below-the-neck-ware” has never heard of “objective reality.” But it is **immersed** in pre-metaphysical natural-empirical reality. It “responds” to its umvelt. Animals with more developed nervous systems “navigate” the “temporal depth” of the world at an individual level. Of course insects like cicadas can do this in a “hard-wired” way at the species level. Humans stand out, in my view, through the uncanny richness of their sign-system, which allows of course for the accumulation of technology on the planet that remakes the typical human environment entirely. Given the “glory” of this sign system, there’s a tendency to set the human above other animals not only in terms of complexity but in terms of a “pure leap” into a “pure conceptuality.” We might think of another ape species arranging sticks in a chain of shapes, to “prove” itself out of its situation. For instance, I see mathematical platonism as a relatively “naked” expression of this theological urge. I then connect the use of “truth-as-mirroring” in non-empirical contexts to the tacit projection of an ideal ( sacred ) “POV.” In other words, “objective reality” is “umvelt for a panopiticonic God.” In mundane contexts, it’s a “reasonable” phrase— referring to perceptual situations that are imperfectly but sufficiently decidable in principle at least, but in metaphysics it leads to confusion. A “trans-empirical truth-making what-not” is taken for granted. If we stick to the “animal common sense” that the empirical world is the perceptual world, then the communal world as experienced world is world-for-animal. But we need not and should not “therefore” read “experience” as something other than environment-itself-from-POV. For instance, we don’t want to invent a “mind-stuff picture” between the animal and its environment. “Deep” belief is already **body** -stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Thrifclyfe](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/thrifclyfe/32/1132_2.png) [@Thrifclyfe](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Thrifclyfe)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2026, 5:54am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-truth-of-contradictory-statements/2914/3 "2026-09-06T05:54:17Z")
If I reconstruct your post: 1. Organisms survive by treating some things as true and some as false. 2. Different organisms can disagree. 3. Therefore contradictory beliefs can both be true. 4. Therefore dialetheism. I thought dialetheism was about logical contradictions, not organisms disagreeing. It’s a very specific term. ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2026, 11:37am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-truth-of-contradictory-statements/2914/4 "2026-09-06T11:37:23Z")
> [@Thrifclyfe](#): > > I thought dialetheism was about logical contradictions, not organisms disagreeing. It’s a very specific term. > [@Wikipedia](#): > > **Dialetheism** ([/daɪəˈlɛθiɪzəm/](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English "Help:IPA/English"); from [Greek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek "Ancient Greek") δι- _di-_ ‘twice’ and ἀλήθεια _alḗtheia_ ‘truth’) is the view that there are [statements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_(logic) "Statement (logic)") that are both true and false. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose [negation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation "Negation") is also true. Such statements are called “true [contradictions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction "Contradiction")”, _dialetheia_, or [nondualisms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonduality_(spirituality) "Nonduality (spirituality)"). > > Dialetheism is not a [system of formal logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system "Formal system"); instead, it is a thesis about [truth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth "Truth") that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. A common mistake resulting from this is to reject dialetheism on the basis that, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., [classical logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_logic "Classical logic") and [intuitionistic logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic "Intuitionistic logic")), every statement becomes a [theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem_(logic) "Theorem (logic)") if a contradiction is true, [trivialising](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivialism "Trivialism") such systems when dialetheism is included as an [axiom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom "Axiom").[[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism#cite_note-Why-1) Other logical systems, however, do not [explode](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion "Principle of explosion") in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as [paraconsistent logics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic "Paraconsistent logic"). Dialetheists who do not want to allow that every statement is true are free to favour these over traditional, explosive logics. Dialetheism is a new word for me, although I’ve heard of the concept before. It sounds interesting. Some will squeal about **Laws** , such as the one about non-contradiction, but there are different, and consistent, logics where this can be so, I’ve read. Is that what this topic is about? If so, then [this Aeon article](https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth) might also prove interesting… 👍 Welcome to our dance, @gridsuru! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2026, 1:40pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-truth-of-contradictory-statements/2914/5 "2026-09-06T13:40:33Z")
Please be more explicit. Thank you. You’ve just dropped some words without telling us what it’s all about. Dialetheism is a good way although it really isn’t. 🥹 ---
**Author:** ![BestGuessYet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2026, 1:59pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-truth-of-contradictory-statements/2914/6 "2026-09-06T13:59:54Z")
> [@gridsuru](#): > > What are your thoughts? I think true and false are opinions of organisms. I might object to another person’s truth and even argue against it, but I am only arguing against his opinion. The scientific method tries to make things true or false in a communal way. So does math and analytical philosophy (I think). Then scientific thinkers start thinking that their true and false are ultimately true or false… but I would say they are only true or false according to this current apparent reality. ---
**Author:** ![gridsuru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecccb3/32.png) [@gridsuru](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/gridsuru)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 5:21am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-truth-of-contradictory-statements/2914/7 "2026-09-07T05:21:58Z")
[![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/EAvxK0f3oRo/maxresdefault.jpg "Illogically Is — an essay film on metaphysical nihilism (36 min)") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAvxK0f3oRo) Just found this video which really captured my thoughts. I think the root cause of social instability is that individuals fail to consider that any two things can be true at the same time, any word can mean the same thing, truth depends on the definition of words. But as the video correctly states: language can’t prove its own existence, then truth can’t. It’s very evocative of Orwell’s 1984. Which leads one to consider: by which method can individuals agree on anything? The only thing we can’t deny is consciousness itself. There is some essential sameness to all words. ---
**Author:** ![BestGuessYet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 1:29pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-truth-of-contradictory-statements/2914/8 "2026-09-07T13:29:07Z")
> [@gridsuru](#): > > Which leads one to consider: by which method can individuals agree on anything? Dialogue and debate. But things would be much simpler if the world would just go ahead and accept me as the Final Prophet of God. Then we could all just relax and read my daily news report. ---
**Author:** ![180Proof](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/180proof/32/1100_2.png) [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 4:12pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-truth-of-contradictory-statements/2914/9 "2026-09-07T16:12:07Z")
“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.” Ibn Sina (Avicenna) ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 4:18pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-truth-of-contradictory-statements/2914/10 "2026-09-07T16:18:54Z")
There are philosophies that describe such things differently, such as the _catuskoti_ from India. The so-called laws of thought, including the one about non-contradiction, are actually the laws of **binary** -thinking. Hence the real-world-denying Law of the Excluded Middle… ---
**Author:** ![Materialist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@Materialist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Materialist)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 3:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-truth-of-contradictory-statements/2914/11 "2026-09-08T15:20:41Z")
> [@gridsuru](#): > > The foundation of dialetheism arises from this: organisms that seek to survive, belief what is true and what is false based on their ‘avoidance’ and ‘attraction’. I disagree that this it the foundation of dialetheism. The foundation is conceptualization and semantics. Russell’s paradox provides a classic example: The set of all sets that do not contain themselves. The sentence “this set contains itself” is both true and false. Sets are conceptualizations,and they may or may not correspond to something in the world. Dialethea expose a problem with the concept and/or semantics- and they have no direct bearing on our understanding of the world. Tarski observed that natural languages that permit unrestricted self-reference are semantically inconsistent. ---
**Author:** ![gridsuru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecccb3/32.png) [@gridsuru](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/gridsuru)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 4:28pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-truth-of-contradictory-statements/2914/12 "2026-09-08T16:28:44Z")
I find no fault in your argument. But it is undeniable that there is an inside-world, and an outside-world. And they can’t exist without an all-encompassing world. ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 12:34am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-truth-of-contradictory-statements/2914/13 "2026-09-09T00:34:56Z")
> [@180Proof](#): > > “Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.” > > Ibn Sina (Avicenna) 💯 > A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson (Self-Reliance, 1841) 🤔