RE: Is the self all that can be known to exist?
November 19, 2016 at 7:32 pm
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2016 at 7:37 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
Yeah that's the point (when you say "not long" is a substitution for "not true"). "Not true" adds no meaning to the so-called statement.
Arthur Prior sums up my position very nicely and hopefully will explain it much better than I can (I'm very poor at explaining myself)
The section I bolded is the point I have been trying to make.
Arthur Prior sums up my position very nicely and hopefully will explain it much better than I can (I'm very poor at explaining myself)
Wikipedia Wrote:Arthur Prior asserts that there is nothing paradoxical about the liar paradox. His claim (which he attributes to Charles Sanders Peirce and John Buridan) is that every statement includes an implicit assertion of its own truth. Thus, for example, the statement "It is true that two plus two equals four" contains no more information than the statement "two plus two equals four", because the phrase "it is true that..." is always implicitly there. And in the self-referential spirit of the Liar Paradox, the phrase "it is true that..." is equivalent to "this whole statement is true and ...".
Thus the following two statements are equivalent:
This statement is false.
This statement is true and this statement is false.
The latter is a simple contradiction of the form "A and not A", and hence is false. There is therefore no paradox because the claim that this two-conjunct Liar is false does not lead to a contradiction. Eugene Mills[8] and Neil Lefebvre and Melissa Schelein[9] present similar answers.
The section I bolded is the point I have been trying to make.
