Went and refreshed my knowledge and now I remember.
I am always dissatisfied with 'solutions' to Epimenides because they
are based on approaches from logic and mathematics rather than simple
semantics. Thus, they try to talk about sets and inclusions, rather
than the simple understanding of the the term 'liar.'
If I describe someone as a 'liar' then I mean that he is
untrustworthy, not that he lies constantly and consistently - that is
certainly unreasonable and probably impossible. To answer every
question posed to you with a lie would be not only ridiculous but
would render life unliveable.
So, when I say that 'all Cretans are liars' my meaning is that ALL
Cretans may lie to me at some point and are not to be trusted. This
is the commonly understood, accepted and received meaning and I'm
sure it was the same in meaning over two thousand years ago. So if I
am then a Cretan making the statement, I may indeed be lying,
mistaken or telling the truth in making the statement but even if I
am lying, the fact that I am a Cretan myself does not cause an
internal contradiction. Consequently, there is no paradox.
That is the response of a 'social philosopher' who doesn't quite
trust all those logicians who should go away somewhere and become
mathematicians. It's fun to think about the paradox that it could be,
but it isn't one.
However, if one reduces the concept of it to the idea of a self-
contradicting source, it becomes a mere syntax error. Xeno is much
more interesting.
Andrew
On 14/08/2005, at 2:23 PM, Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
> Instead, today I read again about Epimenides paradox and learned about
> Russell y Tarski solution.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|