Q&A: Is This a Logical Contradiction
Is This a Logical Contradiction
Question
Is saying about something that it is “incomprehensible,” and therefore is understood as incomprehensible, a contradiction in terms?
Answer
This is a semantic issue, since it depends on how the terms are defined: 1. What does “understood” mean? 2. What does “incomprehensible” mean?
By the first question I mean the decision whether understanding that something is incomprehensible is itself an understanding of it or not. That’s a matter of definition.
By the second question I mean the discussion whether, when one grasps a certain aspect of something, it ceases to be incomprehensible, or whether it remains incomprehensible in its other aspects. Again, a matter of definition.
If you assume that such an understanding is indeed an understanding, and you answer that “incomprehensible” means in all aspects, then clearly you cannot say about something that it is incomprehensible.
If understanding that it is incomprehensible is not itself an understanding of it, then of course there is no problem.
And if this understanding is an understanding, but “incomprehensible” refers to its other aspects, then again there is no problem.
Discussion on Answer
Decide for yourself. I gave you two options. If you think that this is indeed an understanding of it, then you cannot say that you have no understanding of it whatsoever.
It is a contradiction to say about something that it is incomprehensible.
On the one hand, “something,” and on the other hand, “incomprehensible.”
For example, you can’t really say about God that He is incomprehensible, because if so, then what is God? What you can say is that things that are comprehensible are not God. Then God is defined by way of negation.
Thank you for the very quick answer,
how can there be a statement about something, and yet say that this is not an understanding of it?