Changes

If the sentence is false then it correctly describes itself and is, therefore, true.  On the other hand if it is true it mis-describes itself and is, therefore, false.

If the sentence is false then it correctly describes itself and is, therefore, true.  On the other hand if it is true it mis-describes itself and is, therefore, false.

[[Alfred Tarski]], in attempting to formulate a conception of truth that avoided these paradoxes, formulated a way of seperating the concept of truth from "the facts" it was to represent.  His ''Semantic Theory of Truth'' held that truth was part of a [[metalanguage]], a language that talks about basic [[language]]s.  The basic languages, known as "object languages" describe, or purport to decribe, the state of the world.  The metalanguage then descibes whether or not the basic language has succeeded. [[Karl Popper]] recommended thinking of the languages in terms of two different [[natural language]]s. <ref>Popper, K.R. ''The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol 2.'' Routledge. London. 1966. p 369-396</ref>. Take, for example, [[French]] as the basic language and the statement:

[[Alfred Tarski]], in attempting to formulate a conception of truth that avoided these paradoxes, formulated a way of seperating the concept of truth from "the facts" it was to represent.  His ''Semantic Theory of Truth'' held that truth was part of a [[metalanguage]], a language that talks about basic [[language]]s.  The basic languages, known as "object languages" describe, or purport to decribe, the state of the world.  The metalanguage then descibes whether or not the basic language has succeeded. [[Karl Popper]] recommended thinking of the languages in terms of two different [[natural language]]s.<ref>Popper, K.R. ''The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol 2.'' Routledge. London. 1966. p 369-396</ref>  Take, for example, [[French]] as the basic language and the statement:

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

If the liar's paradox is recast in this way the paradox disappears.  "Cet enonce est faux" purports to accurately describe the world, but does it?  What conditions can we attach to it, in the metalanguage, to determine when it is true and false?  ""Cet enonce est faux" is true if and only if it describes a state of the world which is not the case" or, alterntively, ""Cet enonce est faux" is false if and only if it describes a state of the world which is the case".  As the statement "cet enonce est faux" fails to describe a state of the world it can be neither true nor false: it is simply a meaningless string of words.

If the liar's paradox is recast in this way the paradox disappears.  "Cet enonce est faux" purports to accurately describe the world, but does it?  What conditions can we attach to it, in the metalanguage, to determine when it is true and false?  ""Cet enonce est faux" is true if and only if it describes a state of the world which is not the case" or, alterntively, ""Cet enonce est faux" is false if and only if it describes a state of the world which is the case".  As the statement "cet enonce est faux" fails to describe a state of the world it can be neither true nor false: it is simply a meaningless string of words.

The paradox problem clearly demonstrates that real truth can never be a product of sheer logical pursuits, but rather relies on the inherent meaning of [[word|words]], as a necessary, but not sufficient [[premise]]. This points to the origin of words, or rather, the question about origin itself<ref>John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" </ref>. Thus, no clear distinction between "logical" and "real" (divine) [[truth]] can be made.

The paradox problem clearly demonstrates that real truth can never be a product of sheer logical pursuits, but rather relies on the inherent meaning of [[word]]s, as a necessary, but not sufficient [[premise]]. This points to the origin of words, or rather, the question about origin itself.<ref>John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"</ref> Thus, no clear distinction between "logical" and "real" (divine) [[truth]] can be made.

==See also==

==See also==