seems utterly irrelevant, but,we'll see.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 9:24 pm "all the liars are calling me one”
I know absolutely zilch about Taylor Swift. On the other hand, I'm not blind. She is absolutely drop dead gorgeous. And that's no lie. But is it in fact objectively true that she is? Can philosophers or scientists [in a No God world] pin this down? Or is it all more a matter of consensus?
Anyway, what did she mean by it? Who are these liars who called her one? Or was it all just a clever lyric she "thought up" out of the blue apropos to nothing?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 10:38 pmCould Taylor think that they are lying about her? Yup. That's what she's telling us. That they are making up stuff about her. You say: this means they don't think she's a liar. Yup. She thinks they are making up stuff they know is false about her.
It sounds like they are saying she is a liar, and she is saying that they are lying about that, which entails they know she's know.Well, “all the liars are calling me one” struck me as her attempt to write a clever lyric. They're calling her a liar but given that they are liars themselves they are saying that she is not a liar at all. Depending on the context.
None of which has to do with paradoxes.In other words, who specifically she is talking about? Is it based on an actual experience in her life? What are they saying about her? Do they know that what they are saying is a lie but don't care because their intent is to besmirch her for some personal reason? Or do they think that it is the truth? Is it something that can in fact be determined to be either true or false? Or is it more in the way of a subjective, rooted existentially in dasein value judgment? Like saying her music is shallow or phony, or "just pop". Or suppose they accused her of stealing a song from another artist. Well, did she?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 10:38 pmNo paradox: she might be incorrect; but being incorrect in an assertion; should that be the case: does not make the assertion a paradox. It's a false statement, then. A false statement is not the same as a paradox.
Why didn't you start there instead of defending it as a paradox and only finally, sort of acknowledging that it isn't and also that you don't really care about the issue. And if you are not interested in pinning down technically when something is or is not a paradox, the why write....Again, I'm not much interested in pinning down technically when something either is or is not a paradox...only in probing the limitations of language pertaining to the many, many "failures to communicate" that plague our species.
There's quite a bit of irrelevant stuff in this post. And at no point do you directly engage the points I make. It's like what I wrote made you think about some stuff not related to paradoxes and not related to what I wrote.Note to all of the other truly proficient technical philosophers. Please contribute here so that we can pin down when something really is or really is not an actual paradox.
So, if you are interested, as you say, in the limitiations of language and failures to communicate, then you could start by looking at yourself. Why did you bring up irrelevant stuff? Why didn't you immediately drop the paradox issue?
And if your real interest is in the limitations of language, why not respond to, for example....
orIt's unclear, I think, if you mean 'There is no definitive understanding of how things as they are objectively.' And you mean this is true in general. Or you mean that sometimes it is hard to have a definitive understanding, etc.
I don't see the existence of paradoxical sentences supporting, in the slightest, that we cannot have definitive understandings. But perhaps you just meant there are situations where we can, and these were some examples.
in the language thread. Also there...I hope there isn't anyone who thinks that all possible communication makes sense.
So, a suggestion would be that given you are closest to yourself, you could look at your motivations for asking for things you are not interested in, bringing in irrelevant questions and observations, not really responding to points made,I don't think the potential for language to create paradoxes is a problem except for those who think any grammatical sentence must convey something coherent, say.
while at the same time
wondering aloud about the limitations of language.
What's the goal in all that? [rhetorical question - the thread is now completely uninteresting, since it is not about what it is claims to be about, you're not interested in things you ask about and you don't respond to parts of my post that relate to what you actually claim to be interested in. Mull that over, because there seems to be some disconnect between what you say your motivations are and your behavior]