The principle of non-contradiction re-assessed

I want to illuminate in my own way the nature of a law or principle. I will use a popular example to do this - the principle of non-contradiction*:

There can be no arguments for, no convincing us of the truth of, the principle of non-contradiction*. Argument cannot ratify the self-evident. We can never come to "believe" in the principle of non-contradiction - there are ... no alternatives.

We know that the principle of non-contradiction is applicable simply because we see immediately that it encapsulates the rules we employ in our every-day life in the empirical world. Knowledge itself, empirical knowledge that is, is built on it.

It follows, in fact, that there can be circumstances in which the principle does NOT apply. These are not hard to find. A universe constituted of a solitary object cannot provide us with an instantiation of the principle of non-contradiction. The solitary, monad object, call it A, cannot be distinguished from not A.

Self-evident truths, like the principle of non-contradiction, are always 'true' in a trivial sense, though they may apply or not apply. Graham Priest argues in Beyond the Limits of Thought that "dialetheia" (which holds that the principle is not always true) arise at the borders of expressibility. Priest here confuses the application or instantiation of the principle with its truth or even with its absolute truth.


*(one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time", Aristotle)
.

Relevant Pages