Imagine I say this.
1. In this world, if A > B and B > C then A > B.
2. building A is bigger than building B. B is bigger than C. C is Bigger than A.
Is this a startling problem which undermines our very notion of reality? No, it isn't. It's just me being wrong, either about 2 or about 1.
The problem with paradoxes is that the rules behind the paradox define a certain world, and the example set in that world defies those rules. This is an impossible situation which exists purley in the philosophers mind. It is as worthless as asking why, in an imaginary world without water, there is water.
Exception 1: Paradoxes to prompt thinking
Exception 2: Paradoxes to reveal fundamentally irreconcilable beliefs
Exception 3: Paradoxes to reveal bad recursive definitions (i.e:Russel)
1. In this world, if A > B and B > C then A > B.
2. building A is bigger than building B. B is bigger than C. C is Bigger than A.
Is this a startling problem which undermines our very notion of reality? No, it isn't. It's just me being wrong, either about 2 or about 1.
The problem with paradoxes is that the rules behind the paradox define a certain world, and the example set in that world defies those rules. This is an impossible situation which exists purley in the philosophers mind. It is as worthless as asking why, in an imaginary world without water, there is water.
Exception 1: Paradoxes to prompt thinking
Exception 2: Paradoxes to reveal fundamentally irreconcilable beliefs
Exception 3: Paradoxes to reveal bad recursive definitions (i.e:Russel)
No comments:
Post a Comment