Paradox of the paradoxical

[GrowingSmaller]

I was imagining being famous (again) last night, and the interviewer said we need a new paradox, or some new breakthrough.

So I imagined, there and then, the paradox of the paradoxical.

If the paradoxical is paradoxical, which it must be, then it aint all that paradoxical after all.

And if it ain't that paradoxical (which we have just established), then it actually is!!!


lol am I famous yet?

Is this a new "paradox"?

 

[quatona]

I was imagining being famous (again) last night, and the interviewer said we need a new paradox, or some new breakthrough.

So I imagined, there and then, the paradox of the paradoxical.

If the paradoxical is paradoxical, which it must be, then it aint all that paradoxical after all.

And if it ain't that paradoxical (which we have just established), then it actually is!!!


lol am I famous yet?

Is this a new "paradox"?

Yeah, let me try that, too:
If a wrong statement is wrong, then it ain´t all that wrong after all.

 

[Colter]

Then their is the paradox of infinity:

"While infinity is on the one hand UNITY, on the other it is DIVERSITY without end or limit. Infinity, as it is observed by finite intelligences, is the maximum paradox of creature philosophy and finite metaphysics." UB​

 

[Paradoxum]

If the paradoxical is paradoxical, which it must be, then it aint all that paradoxical after all.

Why would a paradox being paradoxical mean that it isn't paradoxical?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Why would a paradox being paradoxical mean that it isn't paradoxical?

Well the paradoxical if paradoxical, is simply paradoxical. But paradoxes are meant to be contradictory in some sense, so if "A is A" then its not that contradictory.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Dp

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Quatona, isnt every statement an assertion of truth, so saying "this is wrong" is a contradiction. So its akin, in your example, to saying truth is false.

I mean, saying "the sun is warming" means "its true that the sun is warming" under normal linguistic circumstances.

I am thinking that all paradoxes are contradictions, but I havent worked out a "formal proof" yet. Brains not desingned well enough, maybe.

But maybe "this is true: this is false." entails anything.

Here goes my humble attempt at using logical explosion:

1: "this is true: this is false"
2: "This is true; this is false" entails this is true.
3: "This is true" or "sun is cooling". (disjunctive statement, true, because this is true is true (step 2) - and you can add anyhting to that and still have a true disjunction,just as you can say "the earth is a planet or I am 100000 feet tall" is true, because its true that the earth is a planet.)
4: "This is true and this is false" entails this is false.
5: "This is false."
6: Therefore "this is false" and "ther sun is cooling", must have one true element (as established earlier, at step 3).
7: "Therefore the sun is cooling" is true, because "this is false" has been eliminated by "this is true" (ie in the sense of non contradiction either "this is true" or "this is false" but not both).


Likewise:

"I am lying" entails I am telling the truth and telling falsehood.

SO "I am lying" is logically equivalent to a contradiction, like "both A and not A." From which you may derive anything, according to PoE.

 

[quatona]

Quatona, isnt every statement an assertion of truth, so saying "this is wrong" is a contradiction. So its akin, in your example, to saying truth is false.

I mean, saying "the sun is warming" means "its true that the sun is warming" under normal linguistic circumstances.

I am thinking that all paradoxes are contradictions, but I havent worked out a "formal proof" yet. Brains not desingned well enough, maybe.

But maybe "this is true: this is false." entails anything.

Here goes my humble attempt at using logical explosion:

1: "this is true: this is false"
2: "This is true; this is false" entails this is true.
3: "This is true" or "sun is cooling". (disjunctive statement, true, because this is true is true (step 2) - and you can add anyhting to that and still have a true disjunction,just as you can say "the earth is a planet or I am 100000 feet tall" is true, because its true that the earth is a planet.)
4: "This is true and this is false" entails this is false.
5: "This is false."
6: Therefore "this is false" and "ther sun is cooling", must have one true element (as established earlier, at step 3).
7: "Therefore the sun is cooling" is true, because "this is false" has been eliminated by "this is true" (ie in the sense of non contradiction either "this is true" or "this is false" but not both).


Likewise:

"I am lying" entails I am telling the truth and telling falsehood.

SO "I am lying" is logically equivalent to a contradiction, like "both A and not A." From which you may derive anything, according to PoE.

You took my response way too seriously, GS. I just meant to point you to an error in your OP. You wrote "If the paradoxical is paradoxical, which it must be", which is of course nonsense. A proposition or statement can be paradoxical - "the paradoxical" isn´t (I don´t even know what "the paradoxical" is supposed to mean here. Just like redness isn´t red, "the paradox" itself is not paradoxical (well, sometimes it may be).
So this is a simple category error leading to word and brain salad. I bet you can´t come up with an example.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Yeah, let me try that, too:
If a wrong statement is wrong, then it ain´t all that wrong after all.

This reminds me of the Liar Paradox.

The statement below is true.

The statement above is false.

Or,

If a liar says he's lying, is he telling the truth?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You took my response way too seriously, GS. I just meant to point you to an error in your OP.

Cool, thanks for responding all the same!


​

You wrote "If the paradoxical is paradoxical, which it must be", which is of course nonsense.

Well if red posesses the property of redness, than the paradox may also be paradoxical. There is a class (red things) and a member (red object) The redness is the property of the red object, the common feature allegedly shared by all red things.




​

A proposition or statement can be paradoxical - "the paradoxical" isn´t (I don´t even know what "the paradoxical" is supposed to mean here. Just like redness isn´t red, "the paradox" itself is not paradoxical (well, sometimes it may be).

The paradoxical - and this is just floating an idea - is the property shared by all paradoxes. It is like the redness of all red things. If something is not paradoxical, it doesn't belong to the class of paradoxes.



​

So this is a simple category error leading to word and brain salad. I bet you can´t come up with an example.

Well take a list of paradoxes a, b, c, d etc. They form a subset of the set "every paradox possible". They all share the feature of being paradoxical or they do not. Only if they do are they really paradoxes, I would argue. If thay are not paradoxical, there is something missing, an essential ingredient. Just as if a red thing does not possess redness, it cant be truly called a red thing.

Sorry if all this seems to be a repetition, but I have tried to expand on your requests in a logical manner.
​

 

[GrowingSmaller]

This reminds me of the Liar Paradox.

The statement below is true.

The statement above is false.

Or,

If a liar says he's lying, is he telling the truth?

I am claining that its a disguised (in this case quite possible a badly disguised) contradiction. It seems that either a paradox is a simple truth (x), or is ita a compound contradiction (x and not x). My guess is the latter, because thats at least where the odds lay.

 

[Chesterton]

Am I missing something here? All I see is you using an adjective to describe a noun, and the words are similar, like this: athletes are athletic; thrills are thrilling. I just see tautological redundancy, not paradox.

 

[quatona]

Cool, thanks for responding all the same!


​

Well if red posesses the property of redness,​

Sorry, GS, but when someone tries to turn a simple statement into such a monster of a sentence, I know something is going to go wrong.
What you mean to say is that "something is red".
Red doesn´t posess the property of redness. This something - if by all means you insist on the complicated version - "posesses the property of red".
Neither "red" nor "redness" posess anything - they aren´t red. "Red" is the property of the object in question.

There is a class (red things) and a member (red object) The redness is the property of the red object, the common feature allegedly shared by all red things.

Exactly.




​

The paradoxical - and this is just floating an idea - is the property shared by all paradoxes.

No, it is the property shared by all paradox statements.

It is like the redness of all red things. If something is not paradoxical, it doesn't belong to the class of paradoxes.

...and just like "redness" itself doesn´t belong to the class of red objects, "the paradoxical" itself doesn´t belong to the class of paradoxical statements.



​

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I am claining that its a disguised (in this case quite possible a badly disguised) contradiction. It seems that either a paradox is a simple truth (x), or is ita a compound contradiction (x and not x). My guess is the latter, because thats at least where the odds lay.

Isn't a statement that says "x and not x" the definition of a paradox?

 

[Chesterton]

Isn't a statement that says "x and not x" the definition of a paradox?

But he's not saying that. All he's saying is "x is x". Irony is ironic, fruitiness is fruity, and paradox is paradoxical.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Growing Smaller, no. That isn't a new paradox nor are you famous (at least for your philosophy).

You haven't said anything. You have arranged some English language words in an order that pretends to be a sentence saying something, but it doesn't say anything.

For instance, your 'Liar Paradox' is likewise incomplete.

When one says 'I am lying', the statement in and of itself is meaningless.

If he is referring to his life - or actually what he has in the past claimed by word or deed about his life - then he may mean he's been acting and living fraudulently in terms of the person he is, where he lives, how he votes or his preferences regarding sex or ice cream.

However, 'I am lying' without a reference conveys no information.

If one says, 'There is a message for you at the front desk. I am lying'. The hearer may well conclude there is no message at the front desk. Or the hearer may conclude the speaker is lying about lying and there is a message at the front desk. Usually the speaker then defends his inability to communicate by saying something like, 'Well, everybody know what that means...' At which point the hearer is justified and probably obliged to slap the speaker until the speaker grasps the concept of clarity.

Your 'new thought' about paradoxes is simply gibberish. Possibly you can peddle it to people who have never read anything about thinking or Hans Christian Anderson's The Emperor's New Clothes.

 

[AFDad]

My Cat is a Paradox!

 

[Paradoxum]

Well the paradoxical if paradoxical, is simply paradoxical. But paradoxes are meant to be contradictory in some sense, so if "A is A" then its not that contradictory.

The labelling of the problem (paradox) isn't the paradox... the content of the problem is the paradox.

So I'd agree that the labelling isn't paradoxical, but the content of the paradox still is paradoxical.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Dp

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Am I missing something here? All I see is you using an adjective to describe a noun, and the words are similar, like this: athletes are athletic; thrills are thrilling. I just see tautological redundancy, not paradox.

So the paradoxical is paradoxical by definiton? Or not?