From Russel's paradox to Zeno's, a significant proportion of philosophy dedicated to paradoxes of various kinds. This is, usually, bullshit.
Paradoxes can be useful when they reveal inherit problems in our models of the world. Usually they don't do this. Instead, they use definitions to create impossible situations which have no parallel in reality.
i.e: A is a liar. Everything they say is not true. A say's that they are a liar.
Th usual solutions are to ignore the actual meaning of the statement and retreat into language games (liar != untrue. truth != relation to reality) or to retreat into complexity. The real answer is far simpler. If A requires B, and B implies not A, then one of the rules must be wrong. i.e: If A always lies and says they lie, than it must be true that they do not always lie or that they do not say that they do not lie.
Assuming there is a truth in the real world (either A lies or doesn't), then a lying A cannot say that they do lie and visa versa*.
*assuming opposite of always lying is always being truthful
Paradoxes can be useful when they reveal inherit problems in our models of the world. Usually they don't do this. Instead, they use definitions to create impossible situations which have no parallel in reality.
i.e: A is a liar. Everything they say is not true. A say's that they are a liar.
Th usual solutions are to ignore the actual meaning of the statement and retreat into language games (liar != untrue. truth != relation to reality) or to retreat into complexity. The real answer is far simpler. If A requires B, and B implies not A, then one of the rules must be wrong. i.e: If A always lies and says they lie, than it must be true that they do not always lie or that they do not say that they do not lie.
Assuming there is a truth in the real world (either A lies or doesn't), then a lying A cannot say that they do lie and visa versa*.
*assuming opposite of always lying is always being truthful
No comments:
Post a Comment