I don't know if this paradox has been covered elsewhere, I do little (if any?) research on the ideas I have. I prefer to dive right in and see what I can come up with on my own.
I was talking through a conversation in my head, between me and a friend. I was thinking about getting old and making plans for the future and how our attitudes influence these things. I was told growing up that my attitudes would change. I can only guess this is because as we get older we have new experiences, we have more time for introspection and can come to form new beliefs. It seems like a pretty good description of how our attitudes are formed and behave. So I'm left thinking, should we think that no attitude is concrete?
It doesn't seem to be outlandish to suggest that no belief is concrete. If we do think that no attitude is, or should be, concrete it seems we have one very obvious question: is the attitude that no attitude is concrete actually a concrete attitude. If it should happen to be a concrete attitude, then we find that the attitude (that no attitude is concrete) is actually incorrect. If it is not a concrete attitude, then we find that we have no concrete attitudes and so the suggestion that all out attitudes are not concrete seems concrete and plausible.
Answers on a postcard?
No comments:
Post a Comment