Don’t religiously follow the dictates of logic (like a blind faith) because we have more sense than that. Be more reason-able.
Look at the example below.
The statement below is false.
The statement above is true.
Each sentence by themselves appear plausible and true-sounding. Each is logical by themselves. But next to each other suddenly we encounter a paradox.
a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.
a statement or proposition which, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable or self-contradictory.
Dictionaries sometimes give the ‘Liar paradox’ as an example of a paradox (albeit of the second definition variety). Indeed, this paradox was something that hounded the Ancient Greeks a long time ago – and it’s original form was known as the ‘Epimenides Paradox’. What is it? Much like the example above, it takes the form of something like this:
Professor Lars Gule said:
“…So here is a confusion. The confusion that he brings with him into his presentation of the Liberalist tradition. I am not in that tradition. I find parts of it sympathetic, but he is – and it seems to me that he is reading every text as a Salafi – as something that is there – like the Qur’an, unchangeable, for eternity. The whole point with a tradition [i.e. the Liberal Tradition] in political philosophy is that it develops. Of course, we do think and say – Liberals do think and say something different to what John Locke said; that is the whole point of a [Liberal] philosophical tradition – is that those who follow John Locke, looked at what he wrote and saw: ‘Ah! He’s mistaken. I can do better. We can improve.’ And those that follow him again, says the same thing. So, Liberalism (now I’m speaking as a teacher) is different today than it was at John Locke’s time, and to say that we have to go back to John Locke to understand Liberalism is plainly nonsense. I’m sorry. It doesn’t make any sense. Because Liberalists today say something else than what John Locke said and wrote.
“So, here there is a confusion and actually a rather strange, if not to say, naïve presentation of the Liberal Tradition in political philosophy. Of course, people within the Liberal Tradition are affected by the circumstances: John Locke was a Christian; many Liberals, political Liberals, today are not religious; they say and mean different things. And how the tradition, how the contradictions within the traditions has been addressed and changed… Mr Hijab is quite correct: in the Liberal Tradition, there has been racist attitudes; there has been arguments for the death penalty that has been practised and legitimised and justified by Liberals… Today, if we say that Liberal political philosophy, Liberal political thinking is predominant (and there is a case for that) in the Western world today – look at Europe today: they have all abolished the death penalty. So, to argue that John Locke was in favour of the death penalty four hundred years ago and relating that to Liberalism today is simply absurd. It doesn’t make any sense. Because Liberalism today is completely different.” (Time-stamp: 52:42 to 55:33)