4 Answers

  1. We must first answer the question: what is the danger of lying? And the philosophical answer to this question is that lying kills the truth and it is very dangerous. And if a person speaks and not only speaks, but also does it, then there can be no justification in this matter. A lie is a lie, which means that he is doing his dirty work. It is necessary to understand that it is impossible to lie to him there is no excuse- – – this is murder!!! If you don't want to tell the truth, you'd better keep quiet! With respect.

  2. To solve this problem we need one reference saying using one that is compatible with the above statement for example

    Basis : I say I'm lying ,and it's true .

    Reference dictum: I say that it is so, but in reality it is not .

    Solution: The essence of a reference statement can be obtained by discarding the statements and solely returning to the essence of the subject in which – ” this is not so ”

    Therefore, in the main utterance, it is necessary to discard unnecessary non-delivered information in order to avoid confusion and leave only the decision corresponding to the fact, as in the reference one .We'll get :

    I'm lying, and therefore I'm lying .This will be the solution to the problem .

  3. This is both false and true. This is Hegel's dialectic, gentlemen. Of course, this cannot be accepted by people who are guided only by formal logic, where A, or A, or not A, the third is not given. Mathematicians can say so. But that's a philosophy.
    The whole world is dual and contradictory.

    Here's the triad.
    Thesis – this is a lie. Since man has already lied in fact, this is being.
    Antithesis-this is true. Since the person confessed to his lie, we can say that he redeemed his “sins”.
    And synthesis is a person who admits to lying, a good enough person who fights with his shortcomings, overcoming them.

    Even in the statement itself, in the words, there is both truth and falsehood, which means being. But we cannot fix our attention on the whole dialectical moment. We can only consider this alternately. When we consider a lie, it is being. But when we come to the truth, it is also being, but the lie is already nothing. Truth is the denial of lies. There can be no moment of being without nothing. There is always affirmation and negation, being and nothing.

    Is there a God? Both yes and no. On the one hand, it is not proven, you can only believe in it. On the other hand, it is present in people's minds, words, beliefs, images and pictures. Or is spiritual not an argument for you? But I hope you believe in consciousness and reason, thoughts, thinking and a system of beliefs and values, although it is immaterial, but it is, and therefore being.

  4. I can't say anything about philosophy, if it exists at all, but this is a special case of Russell's paradox in set theory. At the formal level, the paradox was eliminated by changing the axiomatics of set theory. And for your particular case, it is enough to simply say that not every statement is necessarily either ” true “(belongs to a subset of true statements) or” false ” (belongs to a subset of false statements). There are also statements that do not belong to either of these two subsets and, accordingly, are neither true nor false. The above is one of them.

Leave a Reply