Thread: A = -A ...sometimes

I'm reading "The God who is there" by Francis Schaeffer.
Something I'm curious about is what the postmondernist's objection to antithesis really is. Do postmodernists object to "A is not -A," do they assert that "A can be -A (sometimes)"?

What would be some examples of postmodern thought in this area of rejecting antithesis? Can you give an example of how a postmodernist would say that "A can sometimes be -A"?

How would you try to show a postmodernist that antithesis is correct and that their view is false?

Thanks

Hmmmm, the only time A= -A is if you use the absolute value of it. SO THERE ARE ABSOLUTES !!!!!!

That's what I was going to say! [A]

Okay. So does anyone have any examples of how the postmodernist makes the case for A sometimes equaling -A?
As Schaeffer points out, they seem to operate on the "logic" of synthesis rather than antithesis.
Any thoughts?

This might be a good example: Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the box is opened.

Originally Posted by amishrockstar

Okay. So does anyone have any examples of how the postmodernist makes the case for A sometimes equaling -A?
As Schaeffer points out, they seem to operate on the "logic" of synthesis rather than antithesis.
Any thoughts?

Hi, my

For example, the postmodernist might say that all religions are true (thus making it the case that Christ both died and didn't die on the cross) or that what is true for you isn't necessarily true for me (the same thing basically)´

The concept of truth then becomes meaningless, but it should also be noted that the postmodernist tries to convince you that it is objectively true that all truth is subective.

I think also postmoderns like to picture truth as an elephant. Each religion examines different parts of the elephant and give contradictory accounts (A:s and not-A:s). Nonetheless they all give true accounts of their partuclar fraction of truth. Truth encompasses the whole and "synthesises" all the seemingly contradictory statements (very Hegelian, i believe)

But the postmodernist must not exclude himself then. His theory of the elephant must itself be a fraction of the truth. Otherwise he is claiming to possess the whole truth. Which was exactly what he wanted to avoid by mentioning the elephant in the first place.

Thanks for the posts!
Those examples help a lot.