Abstract
By a paradox we understand a seemingly true statement or set of statements which lead by valid deduction to contradictory statements. Logical paradoxes - paradoxes which involve logical concepts - are in fact as old as the history of logic. The Liar paradox, for instance, goes back to Epimenides. In the late 19th century a new impetus v/as given to the investigation of logical paradoxes by the discovery of new logico-mathematical paradoxes such as those of Russell and Burali- Porti. This came about in the course of attempts to give mathematics a rigorous axiomatic foundation. Sometimes a distinction is maintained between a paradox and an antinomy. In a paradox, it is said, semantical notions are involved and a certain "oddity", "strangeness", or what may be called "paradoxical situation", resides in its construction. The resolution of a paradox is therefore not simply a matter of removing contradiction, but also requires clarifying and removing the "oddity". On the other hand, an antinomy is said to consist in the derivation of a contradiction in an axiomatic system and its resolution lies in revising the system so as to avoid the contradiction. In discussing paradoxes and antinomies, we shall not be strictly bound by this usage of these terms: we use "paradox" and "antinomy" interchangeably. Indeed, from our point of view, even antinomies in an axiomatic system ultimately need semantic clarification and thus removal of paradoxical situations.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,518
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Paradoxes of Intensionality.Dustin Tucker & Richmond H. Thomason - 2011 - Review of Symbolic Logic 4 (3):394-411.
An Order-Theoretic Account of Some Set-Theoretic Paradoxes.Thomas Forster & Thierry Libert - 2011 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 52 (1):1-19.
Logical, Semantic and Cultural Paradoxes.Anna Orlandini - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (1):65-86.
Logical Paradoxes.Barry Hartley Slater - 2001 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Definability and the Structure of Logical Paradoxes.Haixia Zhong - 2012 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (4):779 - 788.
Liars and Heaps: New Essays on Paradox.J. C. Beall (ed.) - 2003 - Oxford University Press.
Is Russell's Paradox Genuine?James Moulder - 1974 - Philosophy 49 (189):295 - 302.
Epistemic Paradox and the Logic of Acceptance.Michael J. Shaffer - 2013 - Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 25:337-353.
The Liar Paradox and the Inclosure Schema.Emil Badici - 2008 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (4):583 – 596.
What the Liar Taught Achilles.Gary Mar & Paul St Denis - 1999 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (1):29-46.
Librationist Closures of the Paradoxes.Frode Bjørdal - 2012 - Logic and Logical Philosophy 21 (4):323-361.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-11-09

Total views
6 ( #1,077,485 of 2,421,915 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #545,840 of 2,421,915 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes