Liar paradox - If this sentence were true, then what it says would be the truth, implying that it is false which is a contradiction, so if it were false then it is false that this sentence is false, hence it is true which is also a contradiction.

submitted by JasonCarswell from en.wikipedia.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The initial conversation is about sentences - not their communication. And even expanded to include communication, there is always room for confusion in many communications.

For example, SaidIt.net has been touted as being for "free speech" by myself and others. This was before I was exposed to alt-right, asstrolls, and other appropriation meanings of "free speech". Now I would call it "uncensored civilized discourse". My new phrase's meaning remains the same to me, but negates the others that I didn't want included. Meanings can evolve.

For another example, take a movie with a character that flips from protagonist to antagonist. Everything they say is the same the second time you view the movie - but now you see it in a different light. Suddenly words are inverted, despite being the same, with the same person, in the same situation - just with broader perspective and context.

Your example is good, yet not. To claim that all sentences are true, regardless - is only true on an existential level. Yes they exist. Your foreign language is as good as "asdl;kgjalkdfjlakjfd" or a line of stones to me. Yes it is true they exist - but no more. And importantly, the interpreted ideas communicated do NOT exist.

[–]beermeem 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Have you read much Wittgenstein?

The importance of words is not meaning but communication.

I heard what you said and I'm not certain you understood what you said.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I know what I said.

Again - the initial post and this conversation is about sentences - not their communication, interpretations, and miscommunications.

I've not been debating you on anything else, though you're avidly trying to twist it into another discussion to validate another stance. If you want that discussion, then that's a whole other discussion, but you haven't swayed me on this.

Wittgenstein is moot.

Have you tried 'correcting' the Wikipedia article?

[–]beermeem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why would I do that?