Retortion: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:: ''Cogito, ergo sum.'' | :: ''Cogito, ergo sum.'' | ||
== Strange certitudes == | |||
:; Heidegger, ''Intro to Metaphysics,'' 199 | |||
:: "No one can jump over his own shadow." | |||
:::: I know this is true. I know what a shadow is, I know what jumping is, and I see what he means. I don't know how to specify the premises that would turn this into a formal deduction, but I'm sure they could be spelled out eventually. | |||
<!-- | <!-- |
Revision as of 17:21, 18 April 2018
Retortion is the act of identifying a self-referential contradiction in an opponent's position.
So, for example, if I were to write, "No one can type a coherent sentence in English," a thoughtful critic might retort: "But what you just wrote provides evidence against what you claim to be true."
Retortion is spelled "retorsion" in French. The idea of turning an opponent's self-referential contradictions into a reason for rejecting the position is common among Transcendental Thomists, who used various forms of this argument to demonstrate the instability of Kant's epistemology.
Classical examples
- St. Augustine, De Trinitate, 12-21; De Civitate Dei, XI, 26
- Si fallor, sum.
- Descartes
- Cogito, ergo sum.
Strange certitudes
- Heidegger, Intro to Metaphysics, 199
- "No one can jump over his own shadow."
- I know this is true. I know what a shadow is, I know what jumping is, and I see what he means. I don't know how to specify the premises that would turn this into a formal deduction, but I'm sure they could be spelled out eventually.
Links
- Moleski: