Analysing the Concept of

Cultura 17 (1):87-98 (2020)

Abstract

This paper examines the concept of "paradox" in the Liar paradox. The paradox in the "Liar Paradox" arguments is created with the support of law of contradiction. Four arguments consist of different versions of the Liar paradox are analysed. The author explains the issues related to communication, beliefs and the principle of identity in the various arguments of the Liar paradox leading to inconsistencies. There are ambiguities in these arguments and if the ambiguities are removed, then there is no contradiction which constitutes the paradox. Thus, the "paradox" in the "Liar Paradox" arguments is questionable.

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,743

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-06-01

Downloads
12 (#816,361)

6 months
1 (#387,390)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Liar Paradox in New Clothes.Jeff Snapper - 2012 - Analysis 72 (2):319-322.
A Paradox Involving Representational States and Activities.Blake Myers - 2019 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 8 (2):96-100.
The Liar: What Paradox? [REVIEW]Avrum Stroll - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (1):63-75.
Curry, Yablo and Duality.Roy T. Cook - 2009 - Analysis 69 (4):612-620.
Equiparadoxicality of Yablo’s Paradox and the Liar.Ming Hsiung - 2013 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 22 (1):23-31.
Бесконечный Лжец.Vsevolod Ladov - 2014 - Schole 8 (2):285-292.
Liar Paradox.Bradley Dowden - 2001 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Paradox of Liar and Fazil Sarab's Solution.Muhammed Ejei - unknown - Kheradnameh Sadra Quarterly 36.
Liar-Like Paradoxes and Metalanguage Features.Klaus Ladstaetter - 2013 - Southwest Philosophy Review 29 (1):61-70.