COMMONSENSICAL CONTRADICTIONS

Whenever you assert any truth, you disassert some other “truths”. Empirical law : ‘A’ and “not A” don't coexist in commonsense. Actually they may. (Note : The ‘A’ is a predicate/property of some entity/ies.) What is NOT A? Every kind of a thing, or a thing for that matter, has a distinct identity because there is a set of properties in it which collectively aren't present in ANY OTHER thing. So in a sense, everything is unique! In fact, if it was not unique (in this sense) it wouldn't be a thing in the very first place. ‘Not A’ is meant in the above sense. John is a doctor. So John is not an architect. Architect is NOT a doctor. However, a person can be practicing both these professions. But as far as commonsense is concerned, a person who is a doctor is not an architect. John is in a saloon. So he is not in a hospital. Hospital is NOT a saloon. In reality, there might be a saloon inside a hospital. A and B are enemies. So it is only commonsense which tells me that A does not serve freshly baked cookies to B. because this gesture is expressing love and care which is NOT trying to harm each other which is a basic property of enmity. Although it is a possibility that their enmity is such that it allows leeway for such gestures. A commonsense contradiction is less exact/strict and more far-reaching in conclusions, than a logical/scientific/mathematical contradiction. In short, saying “the phone is to my right” implies logically only that it is not to my left, but commonsensically (along with the same) also that it is not to my northeast. If that was the case (northeast), it would be misleading the informant.