Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Shows that a sentence can be paradoxical even if it is not self-referring and does not use demonstratives or indexicals. Yablo's paradox: An ordered infinite sequence of sentences, each of which says that all following sentences are false. While constructed to avoid self-reference, there is no consensus whether it relies on self-reference or not.
The Grelling–Nelson paradox arises from the question of whether the term "non-self-descriptive" is self-descriptive. It was formulated in 1908 by Kurt Grelling and Leonard Nelson, and is sometimes mistakenly attributed to the German philosopher and mathematician Hermann Weyl [1] thus occasionally called Weyl's paradox or Grelling's paradox.
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.
Although statements can be self referential without being paradoxical ("This statement is written in English" is a true and non-paradoxical self-referential statement), self-reference is a common element of paradoxes. One example occurs in the liar paradox, which is commonly formulated as the self-referential statement "This statement is false ...
An oxymoron (plurals: oxymorons and oxymora) is a figure of speech that juxtaposes concepts with opposite meanings within a word or in a phrase that is a self-contradiction. As a rhetorical device , an oxymoron illustrates a point to communicate and reveal a paradox .
The original statement of the paradox, due to Richard (1905), is strongly related to Cantor's diagonal argument on the uncountability of the set of real numbers.. The paradox begins with the observation that certain expressions of natural language define real numbers unambiguously, while other expressions of natural language do not.
Since Jaakko Hintikka's seminal treatment of the problem, [7] it has become standard to present Moore's paradox by explaining why it is absurd to assert sentences that have the logical form: "P and NOT(I believe that P)" or "P and I believe that NOT-P." Philosophers refer to these, respectively, as the omissive and commissive versions of Moore's paradox.
This is a paradoxical question because if God could create something he could not lift, then he would not be omnipotent. Similarly, if God was able to lift the stone then that would mean he was unable to create something he could not lift, leading to the same result.