Dialethism and applications

[Ohmyscience]

I've been fascinated by this topic, however I don't think I have a good grasp of it or what its implications could be. How does this theory undermine the law of non contradiction? Also how does dialethism solve problems of true contradictions?

[Jozanny]

Could you explain what dialethism is?

[Ohmyscience]

I'm not too sure myself. It is to state that some contradictions are true even though it is not consistent. Paradoxes such as (This sentence is false) or someone referring to himself as liar and other ones which are not self referential but I can't think of it.

[jgweed]

See the article here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

For any statement, S, it means that both S and not-S are true, thus negating the law of noncontradition.

[Ohmyscience]

I've read the article and its seems clear that dialethia does negate the law of non contradiction however does its theory resolve that kind of logic? Also if the case is made that if a true condiction exists it is a dialethia then I can imagine people using arguments such as I'm right and I'm wrong in this case because its a dialethia.

[jgweed]

While the theory might resolve some logical conundrums and perhaps limited anthropological instances, it would seem difficult to build a philosophy around it, as it tends to lead to some sort of mysticism or strict relativism.
There seems to be some parallels between this and Wittgenstein's "family resemblances" where the gradations in meaning are more determinate of thought than either extreme: bald, not-bald, for example.
It would seem more fruitful to accept that in some cases the law of contradiction does not apply, or that the terms are not in fact mutually exclusive (given "S" what we think is "not-S" is something else, or a false definition).

[NikolaiI]

There is one example which is common, which is: you are the person you were when you were born, yet it is also equally true to say you are not that same person. So it is both true that you are, and that you are not.