Re: logical paradoxes
From: JXStern (JXSternChangeX2R_at_gte.net)
Date: 08/17/04
- Next message: Peter Olcott: "Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problem's Refutation"
- Previous message: >parr\(*>: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- In reply to: Jeffrey Ketland: "Re: logical paradoxes"
- Next in thread: Jeffrey Ketland: "Re: logical paradoxes"
- Reply: Jeffrey Ketland: "Re: logical paradoxes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:55:39 GMT
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:50:12 +0100, "Jeffrey Ketland"
<ketland@ketland.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I used to be sympathetic to the idea that the liar sentence fails to express
>a proposition. But now I'm even more sympathetic to the idea that there is
>no univocal notion of truth---there is only truth relative to a fixed
>interpretation. Of course, natural language appears to contains a univocal
>notion of truth ....
... but, do you see natural language commiting itself to fixed
interpretation?
Josh
- Next message: Peter Olcott: "Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problem's Refutation"
- Previous message: >parr\(*>: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- In reply to: Jeffrey Ketland: "Re: logical paradoxes"
- Next in thread: Jeffrey Ketland: "Re: logical paradoxes"
- Reply: Jeffrey Ketland: "Re: logical paradoxes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
