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correct statements or sets of statements that lead to an existence assumption, which initially seemed plausible, to be withdrawn.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
I 232f
Paradoxes/truth/PutnamVsTarski: the paradox of his theory is that you have to stand outside the whole hierarchy to say that the hierarchy exists - Charles Parsons: thesis: statements about truth values are made in a higher language - a speech act 'sui generis'.
I 234
PutnamVsParsons, Charles: not more 'sui generis' than a sentence in red ink - merely formalistic trick to say, they could then not contain paradoxes - the problem is only shifted: the language in which we express that sentences in red ink ... - solution/Putnam: some forms of discourse can be understood without a prerequisite concept of truth - Rorty: proposes this for all discourses - some: these things could not be "said, but shown" - PutnamVs: the notion that there was a discursive thought that could not be said is incomprehensible - Gödel: takes set-theoretic paradoxes to be solved; semantic paradoxes for not solved.

Pu I
H. Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt Frankfurt 1993

H. Putnam
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

H. Putnam
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

H. Putnam
Pragmatismus Eine offene Frage Frankfurt 1995

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990

> Counter arguments against Putnam
> Counter arguments in relation to Paradoxes

> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-05-27