I want to clarify that Zeno was a relativist in the sense I am describing because he asked what infinity divided by the finite was and what the finite divided by infinity was in relation to the spatial. He got contradictions and his sense of touch could feel that contradiction. I do not say that Parmenides was a relativist, nor Heraclitus

I wanted to resurrect this thread by adding something to it. We can place truth on one side and contradiction on the other. Contradiction may be compatible with truth in some respect, if they keep their places. Contradiction, according to the "law of explosion" expounded on the Middle Ages, would overwhelm all truth, but I don't think this is so. Contradiction is part of the steps of the ladder leading to Absolute truth. They are superseded eventually but have their own truth in their own time.

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone care defend the "law of explosion" and do so so that it's clear that two contradictory things can never be True at the same time

I was wondering if anyone care defend the "law of explosion"... — Gregory

I used it to dismiss Meta's Coherentism; but I don't see as I can help here. I've no clear understanding of what you are up to.

Basically I'm talking about paraconsistent logic under a Hegelian framework (the internet encyclopedia of philosophy has an article on this type of logic and one on inconsistent mathematics). In Hegel's philosophy nothing is entirely true except the absolute truth which we realize in enlightenment or death. So the problem is distinguish ing between a paradox and a contradiction. Their boundaries are ill defined in relationship to each other. Zeno's paradox may be an actual contradiction (finite vs infinite). Kant thought so. German idealism in general seems to be perfectly comfortable with contradictions. Schelling invented the concept of a movement between thesis and antithesis which could result in a new truth. Hegel was the one who took this triad to the max and made quadrads and other deductions. But if contradiction is merely paradox, there would seem to be something off about their whole enterprise. I want to learn more about how logic works so I have a better framework when I read Kant, Schelling, Fitche, and Hegels. Thanks for noticing the thread