Online research in philosophy

Machine generated contents note: Introduction 1 --1. The Nature of Paradox 11 --2. Faith and Paradox 23 --3. Faith and Paradox: Cases 33 --4. Faith, Hope, and Unbelief 49 --5. Faith, Dogma, and Fanaticism 61 --6. The Structure of Humor 81 --7. On Frivolity 93 --8. Humor and Faith 103 --Conclusion 115.

In Physics VI.9 Aristotle addresses Zeno's four paradoxes of motion and amongst them the arrow paradox. In his brief remarks on the paradox, Aristotle suggests what he takes to be a solution to the paradox.In two famous papers, both called 'A note on Zeno's arrow', Gregory Vlastos and Jonathan Lear each suggest an interpretation of Aristotle's proposed solution to the arrow paradox. In this paper, I argue that these two interpretations are unsatisfactory, and suggest an alternative interpretation. In particular, I claim that what seems on the face of it to be Aristotle's solution to the paradox raises two puzzles to which my interpretation, as opposed to Lear's and Vlastos's, provides an adequate response.

For those who have understood the solution to the Liarʼs Paradox and the Paradoxes of Predication, presented in A Comprehensive Solution to the Paradoxes and The Solution to the Liarʼs Paradox1, it will come as no surprise how the Berry Paradox should be solved. Nonetheless, the solution will be presented here in a short note, for completenessʼ sake.

The very idea of informative analysis gives rise to a well-known paradox. Yet a parallel puzzle, herein called the paradox of synonymy, arises for statements which do not express analyses. The paradox of synonymy has a straightforward metalinguistic solution: certain words are referring to themselves. Likewise, the paradox of analysis can be solved by recognizing that certain expressions in an analysis statement are referring to their own semantic structures.

On a rather popular conception, the paradox of analysis suggests that the intersubstitutivity of analysans and analysandum should be restricted to non-psychological contexts. This is typically taken to be compatible with the idea that two sentences differing only in that one has the analysandum where the other has the analysans express exactly the same proposition. In this note we argue that this should be pondered upon in light of the view that many important ordinary concepts are circular. In particular, we submit that if there are correct analyses grounding circular definitions, then we are bound to further restrict the substitutivity principle, for we must admit that it might fail even in non- psychological contexts.