ω-circularity of Yablo's paradox

Logic and Logical Philosophy:1 (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper, we strengthen Hardy’s [1995] and Ketland’s [2005] arguments on the issues surrounding the self-referential nature of Yablo’s paradox [1993]. We first begin by observing that Priest’s [1997] construction of the binary satisfaction relation in revealing a fixed point relies on impredicative definitions. We then show that Yablo’s paradox is ‘ω-circular’, based on ω-inconsistent theories, by arguing that the paradox is not self-referential in the classical sense but rather admits circularity at the least transfinite countable ordinal. Hence, we both strengthen arguments for the ω-inconsistency of Yablo’s paradox and present a compromise solution of the problem emerged from Yablo’s and Priest’s conflicting theses.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,774

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-09-10

Downloads
37 (#118,170)

6 months
7 (#1,397,300)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Paradox without Self-Reference.Stephen Yablo - 1993 - Analysis 53 (4):251-252.
Set theory and the continuum hypothesis.Paul J. Cohen - 1966 - New York,: W. A. Benjamin.
Yablo’s paradox.Graham Priest - 1997 - Analysis 57 (4):236–242.
Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis.Kenneth Kunen - 1966 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 35 (4):591-592.
Semantics and the liar paradox.Albert Visser - 1989 - Handbook of Philosophical Logic 4 (1):617--706.

View all 15 references / Add more references