Is there a contradiction in Proverbs 26:4–5?

[TonyChanYT]

Proverbs 26:

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Let proposition A = Answer a fool according to his folly.
Taken out of context, Proverbs 26:5a = A.
Taken out of context, Proverbs 26:4a = ¬A.
So, there is a First-Order Logical contradiction between Proverbs 26:5a and Proverbs 26:4a when these partial verses are taken out of their contexts.

Now, consider their contexts.
Let L = you will be just like him.
Proverbs 26:4 = A → L
Let E = he will be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:5 = ¬A → E
Now, there is no contraction between these two conditional statements.

There is a FOL contradiction between Proverbs 26:4a and 26:5a.
There is no FOL contradiction between Proverbs 26:4 and 26:5.

 

[David1701]

Proverbs 26:


Let proposition A = Answer a fool according to his folly.
Taken out of context, Proverbs 26:5a = A.
Taken out of context, Proverbs 26:4a = ¬A.
So, there is a First-Order Logical contradiction between Proverbs 26:5a and Proverbs 26:4a when these partial verses are taken out of their contexts.

Now, consider their contexts.
Let L = you will be just like him.
Proverbs 26:4 = A → L
Let E = he will be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:5 = ¬A → E
Now, there is no contraction between these two conditional statements.

There is a FOL contradiction between Proverbs 26:4a and 26:5a.
There is no FOL contradiction between Proverbs 26:4 and 26:5.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly means not to stoop to his level by also using folly.

Answer a fool according to his folly means that your response should be to expose his folly for what it is, by declaring the truth.

There is no need for the arcane jargon of "first-order logic".

 

[TonyChanYT]

There is no need for the arcane jargon of "first-order logic".

Do you know who uses FOL today every day?

 

[David1701]

Do you know who uses FOL today every day?

Don't tell me - everyone...

I'm not talking about using logic, but about using recondite jargon.

 

[TonyChanYT]

Don't tell me - everyone...

No, not everyone. In fact, most people do not know or use FOL.

 

[David1701]

No, not everyone. In fact, most people do not know or use FOL.

I didn't mean formally. One could use different kinds of logic, without knowing their official nomenclature (or even that they have an official nomenclature) and, often, without being able to explain the elements of the logic that they are using.

I have not had any logic training, so I looked up "First-Order Logic", very briefly. It seems to me that most people use it; e.g., if I say that there is a person in the Bible, such that that person is a man, that he is God and that his name is Jesus, then "person" is the variable, "there is" is the quantifier, and the predicates are that that person is in the Bible, is a man, is God and is named "Jesus"; although, I suppose that using "person" as a variable would make it a predicate variable (I don't know if that's allowed in FOL). Now, most people would not express these things in such a stilted way, but they would intuitively grasp all this and express it in normal English.

Feel free to correct me, because these are "off-the-cuff" thoughts, from a position of considerable ignorance about the subject.

 

[Arial]

No, not everyone. In fact, most people do not know or use FOL.

Most people don't need to. They can put 2+2 together without training in FOL.

 

[Arial]

Proverbs 26:


Let proposition A = Answer a fool according to his folly.
Taken out of context, Proverbs 26:5a = A.
Taken out of context, Proverbs 26:4a = ¬A.
So, there is a First-Order Logical contradiction between Proverbs 26:5a and Proverbs 26:4a when these partial verses are taken out of their contexts.

Now, consider their contexts.
Let L = you will be just like him.
Proverbs 26:4 = A → L
Let E = he will be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:5 = ¬A → E
Now, there is no contraction between these two conditional statements.

There is a FOL contradiction between Proverbs 26:4a and 26:5a.
There is no FOL contradiction between Proverbs 26:4 and 26:5.

But does it actually tell a person what it means? Why the need to go through that song and dance? Anyone who sincerely believes that the Bible is the word of God, knows there are no contradictions. So, even though they may not exactly what is being said is said as an apparent contradiction sitting side by side, the first, second, third, etc time they read it, they can get the meaning of each wisdom saying.

What is more important than trying to discover whether there is or is not by using an FOL formula, we can simply access our minds. Answering a fool in the same manner he addresses you (also known as tit for tat) makes you just like him, also a fool. On the other hand, answering the fool with the truth exposes his foolishness.

It is also helpful to know that the book of Proverbs is wisdom literature and treat it accordingly. Taken together, the two statements illustrate the very point that no proverb is ever intended to cover every possible situation, but that they must be appropriately applied. One situation demands that we not also play the fool. The other demands that we expose the folly so the fool is not considered wise.

 

[CrowCross]

But does it actually tell a person what it means? Why the need to go through that song and dance? Anyone who sincerely believes that the Bible is the word of God, knows there are no contradictions. So, even though they may not exactly what is being said is said as an apparent contradiction sitting side by side, the first, second, third, etc time they read it, they can get the meaning of each wisdom saying.

What is more important than trying to discover whether there is or is not by using an FOL formula, we can simply access our minds. Answering a fool in the same manner he addresses you (also known as tit for tat) makes you just like him, also a fool. On the other hand, answering the fool with the truth exposes his foolishness.

It is also helpful to know that the book of Proverbs is wisdom literature and treat it accordingly. Taken together, the two statements illustrate the very point that no proverb is ever intended to cover every possible situation, but that they must be appropriately applied. One situation demands that we not also play the fool. The other demands that we expose the folly so the fool is not considered wise.

Excellent point. I would imagine it's also a form of poetic parallelism.

 

[TonyChanYT]

But does it actually tell a person what it means? Why the need to go through that song and dance?

Someone asked this question in my subreddit. That was my answer to clarify his logical thinking. Some people here may find it helpful.

 

[Arial]

Someone asked this question in my subreddit. That was my answer to clarify his logical thinking. Some people here may find it helpful.

Were you unable to explain it any other way? Was he satisfied that you had done nothing but "prove" it was not a contradiction? And using yourself as your own authority defies conversation or debate logic completely. Which is more important? The meaning of scripture or whether or not there is a contradiction. News flash. The apparent contradiction is resolved by learning the meaning and purpose, keeping it in the context. In the case of Proverbs---wisdom literature.

And what is the point and purpose of this thread? It is in the Bible Study board and yet from your side, there is no attempt at Bible study at all. Does this one have to be moved also, or are you actually going to engage with people with Bible study? It is in a board that is for the purpose of debate, a back and forth exchange. And yet you are not doing that either, disregarding what anyone says. Is it meant to be a one man show? If so, let me know and I will put it in the appropriate board. There are places for that.

 

[Arial]

Excellent point. I would imagine it's also a form of poetic parallelism.

Yes, I think you are probably right. It is something I don't fully understand, the Hebrew use of parallelism and opposites, in poetic and wisdom literature. Mainly because right off the bat the explanation uses terms alien to me. Kind of like (for me) trying to understand something computer related using computer language.