## Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments | |||

Paradoxes: are contradictions within formally correct statements or sets of statements that lead to an existence assumption, which initially seemed plausible, to be withdrawn. Paradoxes are not errors, but challenges that may lead to a re-formulation of the prerequisites and assumptions, or to a change in the language, the subject domain, and the logical system. See also Russellian paradox, contradictions, range, consistency. | |||

Author | Item | Excerpt | Meta data |
---|---|---|---|

Books on Amazon |
II 276f Achilles / turtle / Carroll / Nozick: logical form: (1) If p then q - (2) p. Problem: q is not yet accepted, but it is required that the following will also be accepted explicitly: (3) If (if p then q) and p, then q - regress: the additional assumption (3) (s) in addition to the modus ponens) therefore is: if (1) and (2), q. This then in turn needs an additional premise. II 277 Solution / tradition: Problem: confusion of premises with inference principles. Then the regress not even begins. - Solution / Nozick: we need to introduce a premise that has the same shape and all inferences supplies as the other assumptions that are apparently still needed - WittgensteinVs: problems of rule-following, etc. |
No I R. Nozick Philosophical Explanations Oxford 1981 No II R., Nozick The Nature of Rationality 1994 |

> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei

Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-05-30