Talk:Trilemma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Note: I've split the section on Lewis's trilemma to a new article. Since almost all the discussions here at Talk:Trilemma were about Lewis's trilemma, I moved Talk:Trilemma to Talk:Lewis's trilemma, then cut and pasted back everything that wasn't specifically about Lewis's trilemma. This is what the talk page looked like before I moved it. Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Economic trilemmas
The one listed as a trilemma in software economics isn't really a software economics issue. It's more of a management problem encapsulated in something Arthur C. Clarke once wrote: "Fast, cheap, good. You can have any two you want." And that problem applies to basically any job I've ever tried to get done.
[edit] "trilemma"
Here's the intro: A trilemma is similar to a dilemma, but with three options from which a choice must be made.
Ironically, no trilemma described in this section is "similar to a dilemma." In a dilemma, both options are bad. In the economic trilemmas described here, all three options are good, and you pick two options and forgo the third (not like a dilemma). The religious "trilemma" has one "good" option (Jesus was God) and two "bad" options (Jesus was crazy or lying). Also not like a dilemma.
The next sentence in the intro (If the three options are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive (that is, they cover all possibilities and only one can be selected), then the trilemma can be resolved by eliminating two of them.) refers only to the religious trilemma. In fact, it doesn't even refer to Lewis's trilemma because his options aren't exhaustive (e.g., maybe Jesus didn't claim to be God, or not in the way commonly understood). Elaborations on Lewis's trilemma attempt to be exhasutive but only by adding additional explanations that have to be refuted in turn, and then it's no longer a TRI-lemma.
My intro would be: "The term 'trilemma' derives from the much older term 'dilemma.' Unlike a dilemma, a trilemma has three options. In addition, not all three options are considered unacceptable, and more than one of the three options might be simultaneously possible." Jonathan Tweet 01:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out that the inclusion of an acceptable option and mutually compatible options makes a trilemma unlike a dilemma. A trilemma is very much not "a dilemma, except with three options." Jonathan Tweet 14:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- An off note, but in a way, the third option is arguably not good either.(I don't expect this to be put in the article). Considering that the majority of the world(well 2/3) is not Christian, that would logically make their beliefs useless. 74.137.230.39 03:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Lewis's trilemma is really a dilemma in which one choice is recommended for its desirability but is shown to be unreasonable, and the other choice is recommended by logic although it's presumably not desirable. One choice is provided by his opponent, which he characterizes as being "foolish" compared to the logically commendable three-part option which he provides. The stupid option is to admire Jesus as a "great moral teacher", despite the fact that his teachings are inextricably concerned with himself, his works and unique authority, his death and role as judge in the future age, and the cosmic importance of his words. The alternative to believing that Jesus is a great moral teacher is established, not by the logic of the trilemma by itself, but by looking at what he actually taught. Looking at what he taught, logic recommends that you believe something else about him, and reject the view that he was a great moral teacher; and, this something else has three logically commendable alternatives. From among these alternatives, he judges one choice to be more preferrable (not based on the logic of the trilemma, but based on how distasteful the other two choices would presumably be, for someone who desires to admire Jesus).
- Lewis is saying that people who think Jesus is a great moral teacher and nothing more aren't really paying attention to what he taught. This is what Lewis's "trilemma" really was, and it is imposing a POV distortion on his argument to say that he offered this "trilemma" as a logical "proof" of the deity of Christ. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Error on the Page
- The third horn of the trilemma is the application of a circular and therefore invalid argument.
Circular arguments are by definition valid. There are other problems with them, but no invalidity Lostcaesar 07:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Epicurus's error
Epicurus's argument seems logical, but there is one error which makes sense if you think about it. Epicurus says that if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then there shouldn't be any. Well, logically, this doesn't make sense. If you think about how the universe is put together, there are not really negatives and positves, but things that are either there or not there. For example, darkness does not actually exist, but is the absence of light. Silence is another of these "nonexistent things" because if you were to measure how much silence (or coldness, or darkness, or emptiness), there was in a room , you would measure how much noise (or heat, or light, or matter) it had. Even negatives or positives within these categories (such as high and low sounds, matter and antimatter, and negative and positve particles) are merely different varieties of these things. This is logical because if Epicurus's argument were true, then there would only be a negative and a positive for everything, rather than the many different varieties that there are. For example, if Epicurus's argument were true , there would only be two kinds of quarks in the universe, but there are six. Good works the same way as the other things that I previously mentioned, with it being there or not. Therefore, evil does not exist, and is merely the absence of good. When someone chooses evil, they choose not to do the good, just, or right thing, and pay the consequences for this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.196.247.167 (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
- Who are you?
[edit] Proposal to split Lewis's trilemma into a new article
This article is about trilemmas in general; detailed discussions about particular trilemmas belong in separate articles. At the moment, the Impossible Trinity and the Munchhausen-Trilemma have separate articles and are summarised by a paragraph or two in the main trilemma article. Is there any reason why Lewis's trilemma should not be dealt with the same way? Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem with me. I feel it is a good move and your arguments are logical. Marax 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
