>>22843>It seems like it's what one is doing on the internet that is addictive rather than the internet itselfwell you make a good point here about form and content. same way many of us debate addicts also like to be contrarians, even against our own positions, just to keep the rush coming. we argue against ourselves as much as we argue against others.
but form and content arises in contradiction here again, since the substance of the argument is not in the strategy of deducing truth, but in something for-itself. thats why when a person knows theyre wrong, they will start changing the subject or wreck the discussion. this is why you concede arguments de facto by coming to the end of logic. Truth thus is where knowledge fails - the silence becomes deafening.
atheists know this well with christians who cannot follow hypotheticals to the end. when they are threatened, the logic leaves. this is also what happens to leftists when conservatives push them into a corner concerning race or gender.
however, this is not to venerate standard logic, but to see how it begins by contradiction itself (which is why hypotheticals must be made in the first place). this is also why purely logical systems applied to reality are at least absurd and at most monstrous. we can see that with utilitarians or anti-natalists.
the fabulous example of logic's originary contradiction is in the neckbeard guy (vidrel) who says "both" to an either/or. here we perceive the Truth at the end of logic (which thus is also its beginning). this in hegelian terms denotes a "real contradiction" in things. the law of identity is unstable, since essence has its part in appearance.
the real contradiction of leftism is also thus in this posited either/or of "gay rights or economic equality". it is an unanswerable question by design, and yet, i will say that it is becoming a real question.
this is why contradiction is the site of Truth (like the unconscious).