Question

From Graham Priest and the SEP it seems like the world doesn't have to be a certain way with the PNC being necessary for scientific inquiry, reasoning and communication (SEP).

The world could be any which way, but to engage in one of the above activities, we have to form some boundary to it according to Aristotle, since speakers can contradict themselves. This very post requires me not contradicting myself, but seems to say little about the world outside communication.

Aristotle, in the most powerful argument for the PNC, uses elenchus not to say an interlocutor can't contradict themself, but that we can't communicate, reason, or inquire once demonstrated they have.

According to the same SEP, PNC can be seen as a transcendental argument, but how? If communication requires non-contradiction, the world could still have them or not. Either case of the world could explain the PNC being necessary for X.

Answer 1

The question delves into Aristotle's Principle of Non-Contradiction and its role as a necessary condition for effective communication, reasoning, and scientific inquiry, questioning how it aligns with the nature of the external world and whether the world itself must adhere to the principle.

Step-by-step explanation:

The discussion centers around the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) as outlined by Aristotle, which is a crucial element for scientific inquiry, reasoning, and communication. The argument posits that while the PNC is essential for these intellectual efforts, it does not necessarily dictate the nature of reality itself. The external world may still contain contradictions irrespective of our need for non-contradiction in discourse and thought processes. This touches upon Aristotle's notion that for meaningful communication and understanding to take place, the PNC must be upheld. Otherwise, contradictions would render the act of reasoning incoherent. The query also considers the PNC as a transcendental argument, suggesting it's a precondition for the possibility of experience and knowledge. Essentially, it asks how, if the world can be contradictory, the necessity of non-contradiction for communication, reasoning, and science still stands.