What is truth. That is the question. Paradox is what has you.
The four main paradoxes attributed to Eubulides, who lived in the fourth century BC, were 'The Liar', 'The Hooded Man', 'The Heap', and 'The Horned Man'
The last of Eubulides' paradoxes mentioned above was The Liar, which is perhaps the most famous paradox in the 'self-reference' family. The basic idea had several variations, even in antiquity. There was, for instance, The Cretan, where Epimenides, a Cretan, says that all Cretans are liars, and The Crocodile, where a crocodile has stolen someone's child, and says to him 'I will return her to you if you guess correctly whether I will do so or not' -- to which the father says 'You will not return my child'! Indeed a whole host of complications of The Liar have been constructed, especially in the last century, as we shall see. Now in The Cretan there is no real antinomy -- it may simply be false that all Cretans are liars; but if someone says just 'I am lying', the situation is different. For if it is true that he is lying then seemingly what he says is false; but if it is false that he is lying then what he is saying may seem to be true. A pedant might say that 'lying' was strictly not telling an untruth, but telling merely what one believes to be an untruth. In that case there is not the same difficulty with the person's remark being true: maybe he is indeed lying, although he does not believe it. The pedant, however, misses the point that his verbal nicety can be circumvented, and the paradox re-constructed in another, indeed many other forms.
The problem here is really twofold. On the one hand, you are merely reiterating the Liar's paradox. The Liar's paradox says, is the following sentence true or false?:
"This sentence is false."
On the other hand, you are really pointing out two other elements. First, the problem of negation. Like the Liar's paradox, you have used a negation--"does not." There are no negations in the world because they are a human construct (according to Kenneth Burke). Second, if you rethink your question, you will see that you ALREADY PRESUPPOSE truth in order to PROVE it. Think of your same question but change the words:
If zippernoodles do not exist, then the statement "zippernoodles do not exist" is a truth.
Notice in this example, you can verify the existence of zippernoodles (a made up term) through seeking them out; however, this is not the case with "truth". What means would you use to seek out "truth" as a "thing"? Whatever means or tool you used would ALREADY have to ACCEPT the possibility of truth? Why? Because, if asked, "will this tool find truth?", you would respond, "yes, it will." In such a statement, you are ASSUMING truth--in short, you are believing that "This Tool will find Truth" is ITSELF True!! You cannot escape the PERCEPTION and BELIEF in Truth because you must already always take it as a GIVEN.
Well, it is an excellent example of how limited we are by words. When you think about it, its really all about the concepts we have associated with the words. Because, when it comes to a concrete situation, and not just a sequence of words which contradict eachother, there is always truth.
You could go on theoretically about how there is no truth because the universe is infinite and for every imaginable situation, there must therefore exist an opposite, so if truth exists, then somewhere it must also not exist, but why bother? its all theory.
The statement you are trying to say is a paradox is actually a domain excepted allegory. Thus, the statement is not in the domain of the postulate it is trying to create and therefore not a paradox. Q. E. D.
confident, there is absolute reality, and it exists only as you have defined it. We, regrettably are caught with perceived reality. And the perceived reality varies from person to person. The classic occasion is that some human beings see a tumbler as 0.5 packed with water and yet somebody else sees it as 0.5 empty. certainly the actuality, even however is that the glass includes equivalent quantities of water and air. as quickly as we attempt to understand the international around us, we describe what we stumble on as reality contained in the form of fashions. The greater precise a style, the closer this is to certainly the actuality. yet there is not any thank you to be responsive to if an contemporary style is absolute reality through fact it won't be able to be infinitely examined. the terrific occasion of a correct style which proved to be incorrect, grew to become into Ptolemy's geocentric universe. It appropriately anticipated the motions and positions of the sunlight, moon, stars and planets with intense precision....yet finally grew to become into incorrect. It grew to become right into a perceived reality. contained in the tip, you may approximate absolute reality by making use of integrating many perceived truths. even however this is impossible to be responsive to while absolute reality has been achieved. and that's the reason a lot of folk don't have faith in it. Edit: enable me to intricate on the terrific paragraph of my post as this is somewhat nebulous. the rationalization we are in a position to on no account be responsive to if we've achieved absolute reality is because of the fact there'll consistently be the question, "do we've all the data?" regardless of if we do have all the data, we can ponder whether there are different data that we are blind to. for this reason, we gain absolute reality by making use of integrating many perceived truths (like the products of a puzzle) to make the final photograph. yet in assessment to a puzzle, we don't have element or nook products and we don't be responsive to the entire of what share products there are. regardless of if we've achieved absolute reality, we can consistently be left with the question of no count number if or no longer there's a lacking piece of steerage which we are blind to.
Comments
What is truth. That is the question. Paradox is what has you.
The four main paradoxes attributed to Eubulides, who lived in the fourth century BC, were 'The Liar', 'The Hooded Man', 'The Heap', and 'The Horned Man'
The last of Eubulides' paradoxes mentioned above was The Liar, which is perhaps the most famous paradox in the 'self-reference' family. The basic idea had several variations, even in antiquity. There was, for instance, The Cretan, where Epimenides, a Cretan, says that all Cretans are liars, and The Crocodile, where a crocodile has stolen someone's child, and says to him 'I will return her to you if you guess correctly whether I will do so or not' -- to which the father says 'You will not return my child'! Indeed a whole host of complications of The Liar have been constructed, especially in the last century, as we shall see. Now in The Cretan there is no real antinomy -- it may simply be false that all Cretans are liars; but if someone says just 'I am lying', the situation is different. For if it is true that he is lying then seemingly what he says is false; but if it is false that he is lying then what he is saying may seem to be true. A pedant might say that 'lying' was strictly not telling an untruth, but telling merely what one believes to be an untruth. In that case there is not the same difficulty with the person's remark being true: maybe he is indeed lying, although he does not believe it. The pedant, however, misses the point that his verbal nicety can be circumvented, and the paradox re-constructed in another, indeed many other forms.
peace and love
The problem here is really twofold. On the one hand, you are merely reiterating the Liar's paradox. The Liar's paradox says, is the following sentence true or false?:
"This sentence is false."
On the other hand, you are really pointing out two other elements. First, the problem of negation. Like the Liar's paradox, you have used a negation--"does not." There are no negations in the world because they are a human construct (according to Kenneth Burke). Second, if you rethink your question, you will see that you ALREADY PRESUPPOSE truth in order to PROVE it. Think of your same question but change the words:
If zippernoodles do not exist, then the statement "zippernoodles do not exist" is a truth.
Notice in this example, you can verify the existence of zippernoodles (a made up term) through seeking them out; however, this is not the case with "truth". What means would you use to seek out "truth" as a "thing"? Whatever means or tool you used would ALREADY have to ACCEPT the possibility of truth? Why? Because, if asked, "will this tool find truth?", you would respond, "yes, it will." In such a statement, you are ASSUMING truth--in short, you are believing that "This Tool will find Truth" is ITSELF True!! You cannot escape the PERCEPTION and BELIEF in Truth because you must already always take it as a GIVEN.
Well, it is an excellent example of how limited we are by words. When you think about it, its really all about the concepts we have associated with the words. Because, when it comes to a concrete situation, and not just a sequence of words which contradict eachother, there is always truth.
You could go on theoretically about how there is no truth because the universe is infinite and for every imaginable situation, there must therefore exist an opposite, so if truth exists, then somewhere it must also not exist, but why bother? its all theory.
One way to deal with statements like this, there are plenty of examples of self contradictory statements, is to say that they are meaningless.
The confusion is trying to make sense of nonsense.
The thing to remember is that just because a grammatically correct sentence can be created, doesn't mean it has meaning.
Our world is filled with meaningless statements, like the expression on our money, "In God We Trust". Means nothing but keeps some people happy.
This is not a paradox.
But to address it you are assuming the truth of the first statement without proving it.
So since a is unproven then you can not count b as proven either.
The statement you are trying to say is a paradox is actually a domain excepted allegory. Thus, the statement is not in the domain of the postulate it is trying to create and therefore not a paradox. Q. E. D.
Truth will always exist
Its not a paradox its a self-defeating logically inconsistent statement.
I.e. I don't know how to type in English.
This is analogues to relativism (Absolute truth does not exist), which is no surprise a logically incoherent position.
Truth is not a thing that can exist. Truth is a relation between propositions, and can not exist independently of an assertion and its veridity.
confident, there is absolute reality, and it exists only as you have defined it. We, regrettably are caught with perceived reality. And the perceived reality varies from person to person. The classic occasion is that some human beings see a tumbler as 0.5 packed with water and yet somebody else sees it as 0.5 empty. certainly the actuality, even however is that the glass includes equivalent quantities of water and air. as quickly as we attempt to understand the international around us, we describe what we stumble on as reality contained in the form of fashions. The greater precise a style, the closer this is to certainly the actuality. yet there is not any thank you to be responsive to if an contemporary style is absolute reality through fact it won't be able to be infinitely examined. the terrific occasion of a correct style which proved to be incorrect, grew to become into Ptolemy's geocentric universe. It appropriately anticipated the motions and positions of the sunlight, moon, stars and planets with intense precision....yet finally grew to become into incorrect. It grew to become right into a perceived reality. contained in the tip, you may approximate absolute reality by making use of integrating many perceived truths. even however this is impossible to be responsive to while absolute reality has been achieved. and that's the reason a lot of folk don't have faith in it. Edit: enable me to intricate on the terrific paragraph of my post as this is somewhat nebulous. the rationalization we are in a position to on no account be responsive to if we've achieved absolute reality is because of the fact there'll consistently be the question, "do we've all the data?" regardless of if we do have all the data, we can ponder whether there are different data that we are blind to. for this reason, we gain absolute reality by making use of integrating many perceived truths (like the products of a puzzle) to make the final photograph. yet in assessment to a puzzle, we don't have element or nook products and we don't be responsive to the entire of what share products there are. regardless of if we've achieved absolute reality, we can consistently be left with the question of no count number if or no longer there's a lacking piece of steerage which we are blind to.