UNIVERSIDAD SAN FRANCISCO DE QUITO USFQ Colegio de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades The Role of Paradoxes in Philosophy: A Look at Fundamental Contradictions in Ontology and Time Proyecto de investigación Felipe Simas Magalhães Licenciatura Artes Liberales Trabajo de titulación presentado como requisito para la obtención del título de Licenciado en Artes Liberales Quito, 15 de diciembre de 2016 2 UNIVERSIDAD SAN FRANCISCO DE QUITO USFQ COLEGIO DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES Y HUMANIDADES HOJA DE CALIFICACIÓN DE TRABAJO DE TITULACIÓN The Role of Paradoxes in Philosophy: A Look at Fundamental Contradictions in Ontology and Time Felipe Simas Magalhães Calificación: Nombre del professor, Título académico Jorge Federico García Núñez de Cáceres, Ph.D. ________________________ Firma del profesor Quito, 16 de diciembre de 2016 3 Derechos de Autor Por medio del presente documento certifico que he leído todas las Políticas y Manuales de la Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, incluyendo la Política de Propiedad Intelectual USFQ, y estoy de acuerdo con su contenido, por lo que los derechos de propiedad intelectual del presente trabajo quedan sujetos a lo dispuesto en esas Políticas. Asimismo, autorizo a la USFQ para que realice la digitalización y publicación de este trabajo en el repositorio virtual, de conformidad a lo dispuesto en el Art. 144 de la Ley Orgánica de Educación Superior. Firma del estudiante: _______________________________________ Nombres y apellidos: Felipe Simas Magalhães Código: 105899 Cédula de Identidad: DB029274 (Pasaporte) Lugar y fecha: Quito, 16 de diciembre de 2016 4 ABSTRACT This paper explores the relationships between some basic ontological paradoxes, that is, statements or propositions that seem self-contradictory or absurd but in reality express a possible truth (namely those related with existence and time), and the way we have built different conceptions of reality based upon these. Paradoxes hold an important role in philosophy, but it seems they are not mentioned very often when delving into the subject, only when looking in certain specific directions, which takes away their merit as the possible genesis of the entire discipline. Through an analysis of a few fundamental paradoxes such as Anaximander’s riddle of origin and causal temporal loops, this paper questions whether or not human beings would ever have pondered on concepts such as reality, being and God if they had never found these fallacies of logic and reason. The paradoxes themselves are the main actors in this study, but the purpose is not to go very deep into them or try to contribute any new ideas or theories related to them; rather, it is to find relationships, map out a direct path from the molding of these to the way we view and study philosophy in current times. The paper searches for several connections between the origin of paradoxes and beginning of a formalized discipline based on theory and logic, dating back to ancient Greece. Analyzing these connections reveals the main interests and focal points related to these origins when approaching philosophy in general, and the specific paradoxes studied when discussing ontology. While pointing out essential links between different paradoxes, then considering some aspects of these outside of the context of specific areas of study within philosophy, it shines a light on a specific rational space that has yet to be explored in detail outside the mere speculation and occasional appearance in the field of quantum physics. Key words: Greek riddles, paradox, ontology, metaphysics, temporal paradox, time-space, fallacy, Uroboric 5 RESUMEN Este trabajo explora las relaciones entre algunas paradojas ontológicas básicas, es decir, aquellas declaraciones o proposiciones que parecen ser contradictorias o absurdas pero en realidad podrían ser verdaderas (especialmente aquellas que se refieren a la existencia o al tiempo), y la manera en que nos basamos en ellas para construir diversas concepciones de la realidad. Aunque las paradojas mantengan un rol importante en la filosofía, parece que no se mencionan a menudo al abarcar el tema, a no ser al enfocarse en aspectos muy específicos, lo cual le quita algo de su mérito como la probable génesis de toda la disciplina. A través de un análisis de algunas paradojas fundamentales como el acertijo de origen de Anaximandro y paradojas temporales, el trabajo se pregunta si es que el ser humano hubiera alguna vez empezado a reflexionar sobre conceptos como realidad, el ser y Dios si es que nunca se hubieran percatado de estas falacias de la lógica y la razón. Las paradojas mismas son los actores principales del estudio, pero el propósito no es indagar en ellas en un nivel profundo ni llegar a posibles teorías nuevas relacionadas a ellas, más bien es encontrar las relaciones, conceptualizar un mapa que apunte el camino directo entre la formación de éstas hasta el modo en que vemos y estudiamos la filosofía en la actualidad. Así, se buscan varias conexiones entre el origen de las paradojas y las primeras tentativas, llegando incluso hasta la Grecia antigua, de una disciplina formalizada y basada ya en la teoría y lógica. Al analizar estas conexiones se pueden ver los principales intereses y puntos focales relacionados a estos orígenes cuando se entra en la filosofía de manera general, y las paradojas específicas que se estudian al discutir la ontología. El trabajo abre la visión de un espacio racional específico que aún no ha sido explorado en detalle fuera de la mera especulación y la ocasional apariencia en el campo de la física quántica, y lo hace mientras señala los enlaces entre diferentes paradojas y considerando éstas fuera del contexto específico de ciertas áreas del estudio filosófico. Palabras Clave: acertijos Griegos, paradoja, ontología, metafísica, paradoja temporal, tiempo- espacio, falacia, uróboros 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction…………………………………………………………… 7 Chapter 1……………………………………………………………...13 Chapter 2………………………………………………………….......22 Chapter 3……………………………………………………………...30 Conclusion…………………………………………………………….35 References………………………………………………………...…...37 7 INTRODUCTION Logic and common sense assure us there is no existence without an origin, and yet there is no true origin to be found. We cannot speak of that which does not exist, and yet we constantly speak of things no one can ever see. How can it be that the very tool we have for explaining and learning is the same that betrays us and throws obstacles in our way? Are we using it the wrong way, or simply misunderstanding these errors? This back-and-forth game between what the world gives us and the way we understand it is the only comfort we can ever get in terms of our existence and where it fits in the larger scheme. The fact that it is possible for the world to cheat in this game calls for a revision of the game´s rules. This revision is the way we understand philosophy. The traps we fall into are paradoxes. Since the rules are designed to prevent cheating, it is not absurd to say that the game itself is therefore shaped by the new ways of cheating us that the world finds. The way we study philosophy is directly dependent on the paradoxes that form it. This paper explores the relationships between some basic paradoxes, that is statements or propositions that seem self-contradictory or absurd but in reality express a possible truth (namely those related with existence and time), and the way we have built different conceptions of reality based upon these. Paradoxes hold an important role in philosophy, but it seems they are not mentioned very often when delving into the subject, only when looking in certain very specific directions, which takes away their merit as the likely genesis of the entire discipline. The paradoxes themselves are the main actors in this study, but the purpose is not to go very deep into them or try to contribute any new ideas or theories related to them, rather it is to find 8 relationships, map out a direct path from the molding of these to the way we view and study philosophy in current times. It is hard at this point in history to argue the fact that hard questions to answer lead to discussion, which might lead to analysis and investigation in the search for answers, a solid appropriate methodology. This methodology can take many forms, and it seems the deeper and more distant from answers the questions are, the more abstract the method. Philosophy is the method this paper will be centered around, but mainly how it is originated. Why do some questions lead to a biological research, some to mathematical equations, and some to the technological developments of new scientific machinery? The difference lies in the nature of the problem at hand, and paradoxes are a specific kind of problem: the kind that seems unsolvable. Why even try to answer questions with no solution? To question this activity is to question the human inquisitive nature that has led to the development of society into what it is today. We can think that paradoxes are to philosophy what stars are to astronomy (not only the object of study but the reason the discipline exists). One might argue that there are many philosophical fields that are not related to paradoxes, namely ethics. However, this paper will show that even ethical discussions are closely related, since the famous Socratic paradox is the very reason there are two opposing sides on the subject that since ancient Greece have presented a disagreement that is still unsettled. The scope of paradoxes within the philosophical discipline is enormous, with distinct paradoxes present and studied in various different fields and focuses. The literature surrounding this presence is abundant, ranging from the specific case studies to the broader and encompassing view of antinomies, paralogisms and sophisms. The latter is much more absent and begs our questioning why we tend to ignore the bigger picture. The focus here is definitely 9 the wide spectrum of paradoxes; however some specific ones are analyzed to determine a structure or method of approaching them in general. Like Roy Sorensen writes in his book on the history of paradoxes: “The deepest paradoxes are extroverts, naturally good at introducing themselves. These challenges to compulsory, universal beliefs are self-illuminating; they stimulate us to draw distinctions and formulate hypotheses that bear on the issue of how we ought to react to paradoxes” (2003, xiv). These deep paradoxes have several iterations, some of which will be looked at with a universalizing scope of view. It seems that much of the philosophical sphere is either influenced or directly defined by paradoxes found and analyzed throughout history. Sorensen (2003) traces the history of the most significant paradoxes with one main paradox serving as the focal point for each chapter. He establishes from the very beginning that his goal is not to formulate a theory of paradoxes of his own, rather explore the way important paradoxes have influenced the way we view them, and how this interconnected series of fallacies constitutes some of the major issues not only in philosophy but across several fields of study. This is without a doubt the main source for the paper, since its objective as a narrative exposition of history´s paradoxes is the closest to my intention. While I aim to find a connection between the “discovery” and formulation of paradoxes, with the drive and purpose of philosophy as a whole, these punctual analyses will help to establish the theoretical basis for any connection I may or may not find. Before delving head on into the search for relations between paradoxes and philosophical methods, it is important to introduce the very concept of a paradox, albeit in a fairly brief manner. To define a paradox in its entirety requires a preliminary study of the context it finds itself in, since an adequate portrayal situates them in their natural intellectual environment. This is an exhaustive process for any particular paradox, which is why we tend to refer to these as 10 single individual phenomenon; it is simpler to fall into this isolating view. While it might be more appropriate to study a paradox in all its background and relevant information, their analysis in isolation has led to many breakthroughs due to the analytics methods that focus on the object ignoring the larger picture. Since the focus here is not to achieve breakthroughs or theories regarding any particular paradox, the approach is a more general one, descriptive mostly, and the definitions to be discussed will be based on the discussion of paradoxes as a whole. A term as unclear as paradox naturally generates many differing points of view as to what exactly is its definition, but through the disagreements and variations we can arrive at some intuitive conception of what a paradox truly is. One of the many definitions, adopted by Sorensen for one, describes paradoxes as questions that offer too many good answers. When a problem faces several possible solutions, it could be taken as a good sign, since there are more chances of proving one of these correct. But when these solutions cannot be proven in any way, and they all seem as plausible as the next, in that moment the abundance of possibilities becomes a problem rather than an advantage. The more solutions we can think of for the unsolvable problem, the more complex it is in its nature and the more theories and discussions it will generate in turn. For example, we have the case of the amoeba that divides itself in two. Usually an organism cannot survive losing half its body as dead tissue; however an amoeba is successful in creating a second individual. Does it go out of existence? We cannot just assume the “mother” amoeba is one of the two, and we cannot consider the pair as one since this goes against the established idea of unified individuals as organisms. Is it a form of suicide? This particular problem touches on topics such as consciousness, individuality and subjectivity. The oldest and most classical way to view paradoxes is to consider them as they were in the beginning of recorded history, riddles. In ancient Greece, a riddle served the function of getting