Online research in philosophy

Investigations in meta-theoretical topics such as the definability of disposition terms or the explication of qualitative and quantitative concepts of confirmation, as well as discussions of various systems of modal logic, e.g., deontic logic, often deal with a number of well known paradoxes. In general, classical logic is used in deriving the paradox of the ravens, Goodman's paradox, the paradoxes of derived obligation, etc. The questions whether these paradoxes depend essentially on the use of classical logic and whether they can be avoided by using intuitionistic or minimal logic are considered.

Zeno''s paradoxes of motion and the semantic paradoxes of the Liar have long been thought to have metaphorical affinities. There are, in fact, isomorphisms between variations of Zeno''s paradoxes and variations of the Liar paradox in infinite-valued logic. Representing these paradoxes in dynamical systems theory reveals fractal images and provides other geometric ways of visualizing and conceptualizing the paradoxes.

Thinking about truth can be more dangerous than it looks. Of course, our concept of truth is the source of one of the most frustrating and impenetrable paradoxes humans have ever contemplated, the liar paradox, but that is just the beginning of its treachery. In an effort to understand why one of the most beloved and revered members of our conceptual repertoire could cause us so much trouble, philosophers have for centuries proposed “solutions” to the liar paradox. However, it seems that our concept of truth takes offense to our efforts to understand it because it appears to retaliate against those who propose “solutions” to the liar. It takes its revenge on us by creating new paradoxes from our own attempts to find resolution. That is, most proposed solutions to the liar paradox give rise to new, more insidious paradoxes—often called revenge paradoxes. For our attempts at understanding, truth rewards us with inconsistent theories, untenable logics, and a deep feeling of bewilderment. It is as if our concept of truth lashes out at us because it wants to remain a mystery. After a few run-ins with truth, many philosophers have the good sense to keep their distance. Far from being the serene, profound concept most people take it to be, those of us who think much about the liar paradox know truth to be a vengeful bully—a conceptual misanthrope.

The paper offers a solution to the semantic paradoxes, one in which (1) we keep the unrestricted truth schema True(A)A, and (2) the object language can include its own metalanguage. Because of the first feature, classical logic must be restricted, but full classical reasoning applies in ordinary contexts, including standard set theory. The more general logic that replaces classical logic includes a principle of substitutivity of equivalents, which with the truth schema leads to the general intersubstitutivity of True(A) with A within the language.The logic is also shown to have the resources required to represent the way in which sentences (like the Liar sentence and the Curry sentence) that lead to paradox in classical logic are defective. We can in fact define a hierarchy of defectiveness predicates within the language. Contrary to claims that any solution to the paradoxes just breeds further paradoxes (revenge problems) involving defectiveness predicates, there is a general consistency/conservativeness proof that shows that talk of truth and the various levels of defectiveness can all be made coherent together within a single object language.

An inconsistency approach to the liar and related paradoxes takes the non-logical principles involved in the derivation of the paradoxes to be constitutive of our concept of truth. That is, it is our very competence with the concept of truth that leads us to accept the non-logical premises or inferences involved in the derivation. One who endorses an approach of this type should not be content to diagnose the problem; rather, such a theorist should propose a way of changing our conceptual scheme by introducing new concepts that do the work we ask of truth without giving rise to paradoxes. I offer a pair of concepts, ascending truth and descending truth, for this purpose. Here, I present a formal theory of ascending and descending truth (ADT), explore some of its features, and propose a semantics for it. I show how ADT avoids the liar paradox, Curry’s paradox, and Yablo’s paradox. Moreover, ADT is consistent, fully compatible with classical logic, and does not require any kind of expressive limitation, so it does not give rise to any revenge paradoxes. Finally, I compare ADT to some other views in the literature.

Graham Priest (1994) has argued that the following paradoxes all have the same structure: Russell’s Paradox, Burali-Forti’s Paradox, Mirimanoff’s Paradox, König’s Paradox, Berry’s Paradox, Richard’s Paradox, the Liar and Liar Chain Paradoxes, the Knower and Knower Chain Paradoxes, and the Heterological Paradox. Their common structure is given by Russell’s Schema: there is a property φ and function δ such that..

It is “the received wisdom” that any intuitively natural and consistent resolution of a class of semantic paradoxes immediately leads to other paradoxes just as bad as the first. This is often called the “revenge problem”. Some proponents of the received wisdom draw the conclusion that there is no hope of any natural treatment that puts all the paradoxes to rest: we must either live with the existence of paradoxes that we are unable to treat, or adopt artificial and ad hoc means to avoid them. Others (“dialetheists”) argue that we can put the paradoxes to rest, but only by licensing the acceptance of some contradictions (presumably in a paraconsistent logic that prevents the contradictions from spreading everywhere).

A philosophical argument in ordinary language is made the basis for a series of deductive logic exercises. Problems of translating the reasoning and alternative symbolizations are discussed to help guide students toward accurate charitable formalizations. Finally, the inference is critically evaluated in light of its deductive validity.

: Claus Oetke, in his "Ancient Indian Logic as a Theory of Non-monotonic Reasoning," presents a sweeping new interpretation of the early history of Indian logic. His main proposal is that Indian logic up until Dharmakirti was nonmonotonic in character-similar to some of the newer logics that have been explored in the field of Artificial Intelligence, such as default logic, which abandon deductive validity as a requirement for formally acceptable arguments; Dharmakirti, he suggests, was the first to consider that a good argument should be one for which it is not possible for the property identified as the "reason" (hetu) to occur without the property to be proved (sadhya)-a requirement akin to deductive validity. Oetke's approach is challenged here, arguing that from the very beginning in India something like monotonic, that is, deductively valid, reasoning was the ideal or norm, but that the conception of that ideal was continually refined, in that the criteria for determining when it is realized were progressively sharpened.

The paradoxes of self-reference are genuinely paradoxical. The liar paradox, Russell’s paradox and their cousins pose enormous difficulties to anyone who seeks to give a comprehensive theory of semantics, or of sets, or of any other domain which allows a modicum of self-reference and a modest number of logical principles. One approach to the paradoxes of self-reference takes these paradoxes as motivating a non-classical theory of logical consequence. Similar logical principles are used in each of the paradoxical inferences. If one or other of these problematic inferences are rejected, we may arrive at a consistent (or at least, a coherent) theory. In this paper I will show that such approaches come at a serious cost. The general approach of using the paradoxes to restrict the class of allowable inferences places severe constraints on the domain of possible propositional logics, and on the kind of metatheory that is appropriate in the study of logic itself. Proof-theoretic and model-theoretic analyses of logical consequence make provide different ways for non-classical responses to the paradoxes to be defeated by revenge problems: the redefinition of logical connectives thought to be ruled out on logical grounds. Non-classical solutions are not the “easy way out” of the paradoxes.