In this section let’s look at some examples for each version of the principle.
Metaphysical:
This version could be shown through the truism that one could not both claim to be cold and not cold in the same way, at the same time:being cold implies not being not cold, and vice versa.
In response, someone perhaps could propose the example of an individual standing in a tub of ice on a hot summer’s day, so as to be hot and cold at the same time. While this is
true, it is not in contrast with the Principle of Non-Contradiction. This is because the person in the example above is not hot and cold in the same way. As their feet are in the ice, this person
would never claim their feet to be hot, just as their unsubmerged body would not be cold.
So, although this individual does in fact possess both of the properties at hand, they do
not possess them in the same way. A similar example can be provided by an elder who claims
to be both young and old.
Activity: Come up with more examples of this version of the principle seemingly failing and explain why these examples do not actually violate the principle. Share these with the whole class, so your teacher can make sure your example and reasoning are suitable.
Doxastic:
This version of the principle can be demonstrated simply, as you can’t, for instance, look at a
car and think to yourself that it is both beautiful and not-beautiful at the same time and in the
same way.
Semantic:
The third version, the semantic version, can be demonstrated by an attempt to assert, as true, that koalas both are and are not marsupials; such a claim is simply illogical.