4 Answers

  1. This problem is purely mathematical. It has long ceased to be a subject of philosophy.

    More precisely, this is a problem solved in set theory. And the root of the problem is self-reference. Statements that have this very “self-reference” often cannot be constructed without self-contradiction.

    Self-reference in mathematics and logic always means a violation of predicativity and usually causes logical paradoxes. The reason is that an object (subject) that points to itself in a set (system, theory) and carries an assessment (action) to itself, thanks to itself, leads to a logical paradox. All inductive logical conclusions sooner or later confirm the value of the set (system, theory) in which they are located, or the set itself confirms their value. All inductive inferences from the bases of which a value (action)follows systems that point to themselves, thanks to themselves — are logical paradoxes.

    Simply put, the above statement, as well as other paradoxes of self-reference (Barber's Paradox,…), is meaningless.

    That is, it is a set of words that do not make logical sense, but seem smart.

  2. Absolutely right ! This is a statement of two opinions. And it's not about lies or wisdom at all. It doesn't matter who, when, or on what occasion the opinion was expressed. Which at first glance contradicts the generally accepted opinion and does not seem logical or contrary to common sense.

  3. The “omnipotence” paradox is a typical example of ignorant philosophy. For the materialist, God is what the Bible describes. Yes, he, this philosophical atheist, does not believe in such a god. And it does the right thing. But his conclusions are based precisely on the involvement of such a personal God in his constructions.

    For this reason, God in his conclusions is Who. That is, a person. But a person can't create anything. But the law is another matter. Law ( Universal Mind, Creator as a collective of many creative forces-builders of worlds). The law can create a stone that no one will lift. And this Law (Reason)� is not WHO and for this reason there is no paradox here.

    Here we can clearly see the failure of the materialist philosophy based on the principle of accidents occurring in chaos. If life is random, then how can one build logical, not to mention philosophical, arguments on the basis of this randomness?

  4. In my opinion, we are talking about a “conflict of truths”. Paradoxes, in turn, produce wrong points of view chosen by observers and unwillingness to deviate from them.
    The imperfection of one's own ” I “is expressed by human individuality, which each person diligently cultivates, mistakenly associating himself with the”center of the universe”.
    What is the point of differing opinions? The meaning is revealed in the presence and implementation of the right to choose (fractal choice-choice of choice), in the process of life's “path”. Since life (roughly) is a process of choice and choice of process, it follows that the richer the choice, the richer life itself. Also, variability provides the very possibility of the existence of life (the extinction of one species will not lead to the extinction of all, due to dependence on different” sources ” of life support)
    But for the rich choice, the universe had to “pay” for the lack of” concentrated ” truth, which is probably how its life began.
    After all, we owe our lives to the lack of balance in the system. Otherwise, the balance would not allow time to start its turn.
    Truth is harmony, constant, absolute rationality. And in the representation of an ordered structure, equilibrium is the symmetry of forces annihilating each other. With these parameters, no movement is possible. And as you know, our universe is constantly in motion.
    Someone, for sure, would see this as another “paradox”, although it is not here either. This is the structure of reality. The truth is beyond its borders, which does not prevent us from striving for it.
    Therefore, no concept is true. True, yes, but not true. Every person who lives with his own truth is in one way or another far from the truth. It is the inability to formulate the “truth” that creates the prerequisites for all sorts of paradoxes.

Leave a Reply