Philosophy-Metaphysics Essay

â€Å"The PNC: A property cannot both belong and not belong to a subject at the same time and in the same respect. The PNC is the most certain principle, i. e. :1) It is not possible to be wrong about it. 2) If you know anything, you know it (all statements of knowledge imply it). †(Chance, 2005) The Principle of Non-Contradiction is both a law of thought and a law of being. Aristotle propagated this principle first. Since then, voluminous literature is written on this principle, many arguments have been put forth elaborating it. It is believed that this principle is the basis, foundation of all demonstrative sciences. Intuitive understanding is the gateway to knowing PNC. In character, it is un-hypothetical. Its indemonstrability needs to be understood in the proper perspective. The PNC protects the unity of the thought process. The content of one’s thought is its non-contradictory nature. That is to say, the content of one’s thought is the non-contradictory nature of being. To deny it is not to say reality itself is contradictory by nature. Here, the fact to be noted is that insufficient education and understanding on the part of the person who denies the principle. But there are many, who deny; foremost among them are para-logicians. Their mental block seems to be their problem, i. e. how we present what we present before them. How the reality is framed for tendering the version to them. The principle could be both true and false. As per Quantum Mechanics, when we can’t make out the proper option between the two, the principle needs to be deemed as meaningless and void. Many situations can be quoted in support of drawing such a conclusion. Aristotle has the answer for this sort of criticism. Those who deny the principle merely assume that they deny; the very denial contains in fact, their acceptance of the principle. Their question whether the PNC is true or false has the answer –they assume that it is either true or false. Ipso, facto, they speak in is affirmation. But there are instances where the PNC contradicts physics. Relativism as a theory must be false, if the PNC is true. If A believes that the sun is shining, and B believes that the sun is not shining, one of them obviously must be false. Every argument has a counter argument; every example can be challenged by yet another contradictory-example. The attitude of most of the people is, ‘Whatever I say is correct. None is willing to accept that ‘whatever correct is there in the world, belongs to me. ’ It is the acknowledged principle with the rationalists and scientists that nothing could be accepted as true without evidence. But then there is an authentic counter-question for this as well. How one can know that the method employed for knowing or accepting the evidence is true? This is an important observation, which is difficult to refute. The truth of the PNC can be soundly argued on the basis of what Aristotle has propounded about it. But this is true of mind-level issues and examples. If one of the ‘arguing’ individuals has transcended the mind-barrier, his uttering will be on the basis of his realization, and that can never be explained through words, sentences and explanations. Such ‘issues’ form part of the experience-domain of an individual. Even Aristotle has to stop here, with his files related to PNC. To take something for granted as truth, the essential tools one uses are, Reason and Logic. These tools will break and are powerless at the end of the mind barrier. They will never be able to break the barrier.