Trilemma

From Free net encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)

Current revision

A trilemma is similar to a dilemma, but with three options from which a choice must be made. 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. Two of the most commonly referenced trilemmas are those relating to Christian apologetics and international economic policy.

1 Trilemma in Christian apologetics
2 Trilemma in economics
3 Munchhausen-Trilemma
4 Pick Two
5 External links

[edit]

Trilemma in Christian apologetics

The most famous trilemma—often referred to simply as "the trilemma"—is a form of apologetics meant to prove the divinity of Jesus or at least demonstrate the impossibility of him being simply a "good teacher". Often summarized as either "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", or "Mad, Bad, or God", it assumes that Jesus claimed to be the son of God, and as a result one of three things must be true:

Lunatic: Jesus was not the son of God, but he mistakenly believed that he was.
Liar: Jesus was not the son of God, and he knew it, but he said so anyway.
Lord: Jesus was the son of God, and thus spoke the truth.

The trilemma is principally associated with C. S. Lewis, who originally proposed the argument in his book Mere Christianity. He contends that there are three probable alternatives, all or any of which, or some variant, may logically be chosen over the choice of calling Jesus a "great human teacher". Lewis's trilemma is therefore a straightforward question on the basis of the Biblical view of Jesus: it compels a choice of any option except the logically excluded alternative that Jesus was "a great human teacher" (and from among the remaining alternatives, he argues that Jesus is God). Lewis does not propose the argument as a proof of the deity of Christ, but attempts to portray as foolish those who dismiss Jesus as merely a moral teacher. However, he was ultimately persuaded that the choice of Jesus as Lord is no less probable than the alternatives, and far more preferable.

More recently, Christian evangelist Josh McDowell has used a farther-reaching variant of Lewis's trilemma in an attempt to prove that Jesus was God. Arguing that the first two options are not acceptable for a number of reasons, we are forced to believe Jesus's claim to be the son of God. McDowell, surpassing Lewis's point, suggests that the trilemma logically compels Christian belief. First he attempts to demonstrate the historical reliability of the Bible, and then uses that in conjunction with the trilemma to conclude that Jesus is divine.

Ronald Reagan also used the trilemma in a reply to a liberal Methodist minister who denied the divinity of Christ.

The trilemma rests on the assumption that Jesus was a living person who did claim to be the unique Son of God. Skeptics have offered numerous alternatives to the trilemma. For example, Jesus may have been a fictional character (either wholly, as someone invented to portray moral principles, or partly, based on a real person but exaggerated); his words may have been misquoted or misinterpreted; he may have been honestly mistaken about his nature; or he may have suffered some mild delusions without being completely insane. Apologists argue that there is reliable evidence that Jesus really existed and made claims to forgive sins and send prophets, which in the Jewish monotheistic culture would be taken as claims of Godhood.

Another possibility is that Jesus only meant to speak of himself as a son of God, in the same way that all of humanity are sons and daughters of God. Critics point out that the New Testament does not quote Jesus as directly claiming to be the unique "Son of God". Christian apologists argue that other quotations of Jesus prove that he did indeed consider himself the only Son of God. They refer to scriptural quotations by Satan, demons, and Jesus's disciples that refer to him as the Son of God (see especially Matthew 4:3, Matthew 8:29, Mark 3:11, and Matthew 14:33), after which Jesus does not correct them. They also point to John 3:16, where they argue Jesus is referring to himself as the unique Son of God; John 8:58, where Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am" (egō eimi εγὼ ειμἱ), taken by apologists as reference to the Tetragrammaton; and to Mark 2:5, where Jesus forgives the sin of a paralytic. On the one occasion where Jesus is reported as asked directly (Matthew 26:63), he does not give a direct answer, instead replying "su eipas", which roughly translates as "you have said it yourself", and going on to say something about the Son of Man that will be seated in the clouds.

[edit]

Trilemma in economics

In economics, the trilemma (or "impossible trinity") is a term used in discussing the problems associated with creating a stable and politically acceptable international monetary system. It refers to the trade-offs of the following three goals: a fixed exchange rate, national independence in monetary policy, and capital mobility. No international financial system can accommodate all three of these goals, so in pursuing any two of these goals, a nation must forego the third goal. Note that this is a different meaning of trilemma from the choice of one from three mutually exclusive goals—instead, it is the choice of any two of three collectively incompatible goals.

Under the gold standard, governments accepted the loss of monetary autonomy in exchange for capital mobility and fixed exchange rates. A floating exchange rate is based on maintaining capital mobility and monetary autonomy. Under the Bretton Woods system, the emphasis was put on maintaining fixed exchange rates and monetary autonomy, in exchange for a loss in capital mobility.

There is a similar software economics trilemma: one can pick any two of: fastest time to market, highest software quality (fewest defects), and lowest cost (headcount). This is the basis of the popular project-management aphorism "Quick, Cheap, Good: Pick two".

[edit]

Munchhausen-Trilemma

Template:Main

In the theory of knowledge the Munchhausen-Trilemma is known as a philosophical term coined to stress the impossibility to prove any certain truth even in the fields of logic and mathematics. Its name is going back to a logical proof of the German philosopher Hans Albert. This proof runs as follows: All of the only three possible attempts to get a certain justification must fail:

All justifications in pursuit of certain knowledge have also to justify the means of their justification and doing so they have to justify anew the means of their justification. Therefore there can be no end. We are faced with the hopeless situation of an 'endless regress'.
One can stop at self-evidence or common sense or fundamental principles or speaking 'ex cathedra' or at any other evidence, but in doing so the intention to install certain justification is abandoned.
The third horn of the trilemma is the application of a circular and therefore invalid argument.

[edit]

Pick Two

"Trilemmas" can also manifest as three exhaustive options with only two feasible at any given time. Arthur C. Clarke cited a management trilemma between a product being done quickly, cheaply and of high quality. Maurice Obstfeld, Jay C. Shambaugh and Alan Taylor identified an economic trilemma with international trade. Economies could pick up to two of the following three: have effective monetary policy, capital mobility and a fixed exchange rate. [1]

[edit]