12
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 26:
Line 26: + Line 36:
Line 37: + + +
no edit summary
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.
==See also==
==See also==
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logic]]
==References==
<references/>