Talk:Trilemma

Split

Note: I've split the section on Lewis's trilemma to a new article. Since almost all the discussions here at Talk:Trilemma were about Lewis's trilemma, I moved Talk:Trilemma to Talk:Lewis's trilemma, then cut and pasted back everything that wasn't specifically about Lewis's trilemma. This is what the talk page looked like before I moved it. Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Economic trilemmas

The one listed as a trilemma in software economics isn't really a software economics issue. It's more of a management problem encapsulated in something Arthur C. Clarke once wrote: "Fast, cheap, good. You can have any two you want." And that problem applies to basically any job I've ever tried to get done.

"trilemma"

Here's the intro: A trilemma is similar to a dilemma, but with three options from which a choice must be made.

Ironically, no trilemma described in this section is "similar to a dilemma." In a dilemma, both options are bad. In the economic trilemmas described here, all three options are good, and you pick two options and forgo the third (not like a dilemma). The religious "trilemma" has one "good" option (Jesus was God) and two "bad" options (Jesus was crazy or lying). Also not like a dilemma.

The next sentence in the intro (If the three options are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive (that is, they cover all possibilities and only one can be selected), then the trilemma can be resolved by eliminating two of them.) refers only to the religious trilemma. In fact, it doesn't even refer to Lewis's trilemma because his options aren't exhaustive (e.g., maybe Jesus didn't claim to be God, or not in the way commonly understood). Elaborations on Lewis's trilemma attempt to be exhasutive but only by adding additional explanations that have to be refuted in turn, and then it's no longer a TRI-lemma.

My intro would be: "The term 'trilemma' derives from the much older term 'dilemma.' Unlike a dilemma, a trilemma has three options. In addition, not all three options are considered unacceptable, and more than one of the three options might be simultaneously possible." Jonathan Tweet 01:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the inclusion of an acceptable option and mutually compatible options makes a trilemma unlike a dilemma. A trilemma is very much not "a dilemma, except with three options." Jonathan Tweet 14:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

An off note, but in a way, the third option is arguably not good either.(I don't expect this to be put in the article). Considering that the majority of the world(well 2/3) is not Christian, that would logically make their beliefs useless. 74.137.230.39 03:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Lewis's trilemma is really a dilemma in which one choice is recommended for its desirability but is shown to be unreasonable, and the other choice is recommended by logic although it's presumably not desirable. One choice is provided by his opponent, which he characterizes as being "foolish" compared to the logically commendable three-part option which he provides. The stupid option is to admire Jesus as a "great moral teacher", despite the fact that his teachings are inextricably concerned with himself, his works and unique authority, his death and role as judge in the future age, and the cosmic importance of his words. The alternative to believing that Jesus is a great moral teacher is established, not by the logic of the trilemma by itself, but by looking at what he actually taught. Looking at what he taught, logic recommends that you believe something else about him, and reject the view that he was a great moral teacher; and, this something else has three logically commendable alternatives. From among these alternatives, he judges one choice to be more preferrable (not based on the logic of the trilemma, but based on how distasteful the other two choices would presumably be, for someone who desires to admire Jesus).

Lewis is saying that people who think Jesus is a great moral teacher and nothing more aren't really paying attention to what he taught. This is what Lewis's "trilemma" really was, and it is imposing a POV distortion on his argument to say that he offered this "trilemma" as a logical "proof" of the deity of Christ. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, A trilemma is similar to a dilemma, but with three options from which a choice must be made. is a vapid statement. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Error on the Page

The third horn of the trilemma is the application of a circular and therefore invalid argument.

Circular arguments are by definition valid. There are other problems with them, but no invalidity Lostcaesar 07:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm... no... a premise cannot also be a conclusion and that is what a circular argument is, and therefore it is invalid... that sentence is correct 86.168.145.150 (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Epicurus's error

Epicurus's argument seems logical, but there is one error which makes sense if you think about it. Epicurus says that if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then there shouldn't be any. Well, logically, this doesn't make sense. If you think about how the universe is put together, there are not really negatives and positves, but things that are either there or not there. For example, darkness does not actually exist, but is the absence of light. Silence is another of these "nonexistent things" because if you were to measure how much silence (or coldness, or darkness, or emptiness), there was in a room , you would measure how much noise (or heat, or light, or matter) it had. Even negatives or positives within these categories (such as high and low sounds, matter and antimatter, and negative and positve particles) are merely different varieties of these things. This is logical because if Epicurus's argument were true, then there would only be a negative and a positive for everything, rather than the many different varieties that there are. For example, if Epicurus's argument were true , there would only be two kinds of quarks in the universe, but there are six. Good works the same way as the other things that I previously mentioned, with it being there or not. Therefore, evil does not exist, and is merely the absence of good. When someone chooses evil, they choose not to do the good, just, or right thing, and pay the consequences for this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.196.247.167 (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Who are you?

Wrong.. Firstly I think it is unfair to judge morality in the same way as you judge something objective like heat, light etc. And secondly evil is a NEGATIVE, as you were saying, and good is a positive.. and he isn't saying why is there not good everywhere, he is saying why is there evil, a negative, not just something neutral i.e. no good or evil, zero.. 86.168.145.150 (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to split Lewis's trilemma into a new article

This article is about trilemmas in general; detailed discussions about particular trilemmas belong in separate articles. At the moment, the Impossible Trinity and the Munchhausen-Trilemma have separate articles and are summarised by a paragraph or two in the main trilemma article. Is there any reason why Lewis's trilemma should not be dealt with the same way? Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem with me. I feel it is a good move and your arguments are logical. Marax 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Done Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologetic Trilemma

It is absurd to put in the mistaken thought of one man (that 'most New Testament scholars do not today support the view that Jesus claimed to be God') readily refuted by the millions of scholars and graduates of the thousands of Christian seminaries that do claim and teach that Jesus claimed to be God. Such a statement is both false and POV (even if it was referenced) and thus, violates Wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister (talk • contribs) 02:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ did not to our knowledge claim to be God Almighty thanks and wise up. Read Holy Trinity and if you think that is a Catholic (Definition: Complete, absolute) term ... forget about it. Obviously not aware of the difference between Son and Father. Good luck and er... Jesus bless you my er... son. Perhaps on the grounds that he is God Almighty being absurd, otherwise nonsense, sorry. Son of forget about it read the bible. ~ R.T.G 05:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, you may disagree with Lewis's Trilemma but it is certainly a relevant and well-known example of a trilemma and it is used heavily by prominent mainstream Christian apologists to this day including Lee Strobel and Peter Kreeft. It does fly in the face of the Jesus Seminar and company, yes we know. --BenMcLean (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Error in the figure of Zizak's trilemma

I think the top corner of the triangle should be labelled with an adjective (is it "bright"?) not the noun "communist". Everything is about "communist". Please correct! 83.77.253.211 (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Proponents of apologetic trilemma

It is claimed in the Apologetic trilemma section that

One well known trilemma was put forward by Christian apologists as a proof of the divinity of Jesus, ...

This gives the impression that it was put forward by Christian apologists when debating those who are not Christian apologists. Secondly, the claim does not appear in the source cited at the end of the paragraph, Mere Christianity; it only puts forward the trilemma, and makes no mention of Christian apologists in relation to it. It should be made clear whom this trilemma was put forward to (see {{to whom?}}), along with a list of additional assumptions that are made to support the proof, if any. It should also be cited or removed. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A reference supporting the claim was added by Rbreen. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Confusing statement in the introduction.

From the introduction on the page:

"There are two logically equivalent ways in which to express a trilemma:"

followed by:

"it can be expressed as a choice among three unfavourable options, one of which must be chosen, or as a choice among three favourable options, only two of which are possible at the same time."

I don't object to the part after colon but the part before it seems incomplete. Shouldn't the whole text be something like this:

"There are two pairs of logically equivalent ways in which to express a trilemma. One 'optimistic' pair which expresses the trilemma as a choice among three unfavourable options, one of which must be chosen, or as a choice among three favourable options, only two of which are possible at the same time. One 'pessimistic' pair which expresses the trilemma as a choice among three unfavourable options, only one of which can be avoided, or as a choice among three favourable options, only one of which can be chosen."

I didn't want to edit the page directly but this makes a lot more sense to me.

37.0.85.197 (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)KoenZyx

Delete "Trilemma of the Earth" ?

"Trilemma of the Earth" seems not to satisfy the definition of trilemma. It is really more of a dilemma between Economic Development/Energy Expenditure and Environmental Protection.

-- +1, I suspect this is from a single person pushing their publication and some term they introduced therein. For now I just edited the section to point out that this is not actually a trilemma, and requested citation that "scientists" actually use this term in a widespread enough way to justify such a statement in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4C:228F:1700:C04D:73C4:8551:2BB7 (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Remove "blockchain trilemma"

Hey guys!

I submitted an edit: I removed the Blockchain Trilemma because it is not a trilemma, just a dilemma. The dilemma also affects all kinds of distributed data-storage systems, not just blockchain, so calling it "blockchain trilemma" is a wrong habit. Security and Decentralization go hand in hand. If decentralization is damaged, security also damaged, and vice versa. Scalability of blockchain also misunderstood: when we talk about scalability, we usually talk about TPS (transaction per second) or GAS limit. In fact, this is vertical scalability, but distributed systems also have horizontal scalability al well. (for example, sharding will be horizontal - but it affects decentralization and security at the same time, again). When we talk about permissioned blockchains, decentralization (only some computer validates the blockchain) and security (the validators can manipulate the blockchain, they can be hacked easier thank 10000 nodes) also destroyed at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaWe35 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)