Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Paradox of analysis: It seems that no conceptual analysis can meet the requirements both of correctness and of informativeness. Buridan's bridge : Plato says: "If your next statement is true, I will allow you to cross, but if it is false, I will throw you in the water."
[10] [11] [12] While mathematics can calculate where and when the moving Achilles will overtake the Tortoise of Zeno's paradox, philosophers such as Kevin Brown [10] and Francis Moorcroft [11] hold that mathematics does not address the central point in Zeno's argument, and that solving the mathematical issues does not solve every issue the ...
The paradoxical nature can be stated in many ways, which may be useful for understanding analysis proposed by philosophers: In line with Newcomb's paradox, an omniscient pay-off mechanism makes a person's decision known to him before he makes the decision, but it is also assumed that the person may change his decision afterwards, of free will.
[10] [11] Others, such as Curry's paradox, cannot be easily resolved by making foundational changes in a logical system. [12] Examples outside logic include the ship of Theseus from philosophy, a paradox that questions whether a ship repaired over time by replacing each and all of its wooden parts one at a time would remain the same ship. [13]
The paradox of analysis (or Langford–Moore paradox) [1] is a paradox that concerns how an analysis can be both correct and informative. The problem was formulated by philosopher G. E. Moore in his book Principia Ethica, and first named by C. H. Langford in his article "The Notion of Analysis in Moore's Philosophy" (in The Philosophy of G. E. Moore, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, Northwestern ...
In literature, the paradox is an anomalous juxtaposition of incongruous ideas for the sake of striking exposition or unexpected insight. It functions as a method of literary composition and analysis that involves examining apparently contradictory statements and drawing conclusions either to reconcile them or to explain their presence. [1]
It was suggested to Russell as an alternative form of Russell's paradox, [1] which Russell had devised to show that set theory as it was used by Georg Cantor and Gottlob Frege contained contradictions. However, Russell denied that the Barber's paradox was an instance of his own: That contradiction [Russell's paradox] is extremely interesting.
The first paradox is probably the most famous, and is similar to the famous paradox of Epimenides the Cretan. The second, third and fourth paradoxes are variants of a single paradox and relate to the problem of what it means to "know" something and the identity of objects involved in an affirmation (compare the masked-man fallacy).