Do we need non-classical logic to resolve the Liar paradox? Or do we need to see that the natural context of classical logic – natural language – has a slight but ubiquitous vagueness? When something is as much the case as not, it is a borderline case; and similarly, self-descriptions like ‘this is false’ are about as true as not. And when there is no sharp division between something being the case and it not being the case, then the precision of any mathematical logic is inapposite.

......The modern literature on the Liar paradox is very formal, but following Russell there has been a related effort to resolve Cantor’s mathematical paradoxes, which may well explain that. My analysis of the Liar paradox has 4 sections:

*Vagueness *(1,300 words),

*Liar Paradox* (1,300),

*Set-Theoretic Paradox* (1,200),

*Semantic Paradox* (900), plus notes (700)...

......Who's Afraid of Veridical Wool?
..........................PDF
## No comments:

Post a Comment