- Person A says that a particular rock is black, that this is an objective fact and not merely a matter of subjective perception, and that anyone who says otherwise is objectively wrong.
- Person B says that the same rock is white, that this is an objective fact and not merely a matter of subjective perception, and that anyone who says otherwise is objectively wrong.
- Person C says that the rock is both white and black simultaneously (somehow), that this is an objective fact, and that anyone who insists that such a position is incorrect is objectively wrong.
- Person D says that all of the above positions are equally correct (somehow), and that anyone who says otherwise is objectively wrong.
Each position is in opposition to every other, even the position that maintains that all other positions are correct.
At the risk of sounding glib - While our molars rot.
In psychology, a general approach to resolving double binds is to address the context they appear in.
For the philosophically inclined, this tends to be seen as a cop-out, an excuse not to address the problem as proposed.
But as I already noted earlier, each instance of communication is also an instance where one manifests one's actual beliefs - and that one's conduct can speak of different values than the ones one professes. (A blatant example are people who with great intolerance promote tolerance.)
Strictly speaking, I suppose there indeed may be people for whom it is a matter of life and death to resolve things like
- Person A says that a particular rock is black, that this is an objective fact and not merely a matter of subjective perception, and that anyone who says otherwise is objectively wrong.
- Person B says that the same rock is white, that this is an objective fact and not merely a matter of subjective perception, and that anyone who says otherwise is objectively wrong.
- Person C says that the rock is both white and black simultaneously (somehow), that this is an objective fact, and that anyone who insists that such a position is incorrect is objectively wrong.
- Person D says that all of the above positions are equally correct (somehow), and that anyone who says otherwise is objectively wrong.
Each position is in opposition to every other, even the position that maintains that all other positions are correct.
and in terms in which they are proposed. For example, people who do philosophy for a living would be such people.
Everyone else has other concerns that are more pressing - the proverbial rotting molars.
By this, I don't mean to belittle philosophy or divert attention. There is no doubt that even as a philosophical lay, one may be keenly aware of profound philosophical problems and feel a strong need to resolve them. But one would do best to do so within one's means.
I think we often get tangled up in trying to solve a problem on a level that is beyond our grasp or affordability.
