Taylor Swift’s Liar Paradox

[Philosophy Now]

With the help of renowned logician Taylor Swift, Theresa Helke introduces four fundamental paradoxes: the Liar, Epimenides’, the Truth-Teller, and the No-No.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/145/Taylor_Swifts_Liar_Paradox

[vegetariantaxidermy]

She's no Bob Dylan. And yes, we all know that shallow American fuckturds with no real education or talent have taken over the world. Is that really so 'new' though? Those who are admired and adored in their own time by a large proportion of the population are often the most worthless of people.

[Agent Smith]

Taylor Swift is, allow me this one, fully aware that the earth rotates from west to east, creating the sun-rises-in-the-east effect. That is, I'm afraid, the story of us. Furthermore, thanks to something wrong with me brain, what's left of it, I feel like as if the words in a long-lost philosophical text literally jumped out, intermingled together, and hey presto!, Taylor Swift's curvaceous, gorgeous form with a larynx to reckon with. Deus Magnus est, Deus Magnus est

[iambiguous]

Taylor Swift’s Liar Paradox
With the help of renowned logician Taylor Swift, Theresa Helke introduces four fundamental paradoxes: the Liar, Epimenides’, the Truth-Teller, and the No-No.

Consider the following statement:

“All the liars are calling me one.”

It’s a lyric. The singer-songwriter Taylor Swift sings it in ‘Call It What You Want’ from her album Reputation. In doing so, Swift states that all liars are calling her a liar. We shall call this statement ‘Swift’s Statement’.

What this exposes, in my view, is just one particular context in which human language gets all tangled up in its own inherent limitations. Like Nick Lowe suggesting that "all men are liars and that's the truth".

All the seeming paradoxes -- Swift Statements -- that can pop up:

* Save money by spending it.
* If I know one thing, it's that I know nothing.
* This is the beginning of the end.
* Deep down, you're really shallow.
* I'm a compulsive liar.
* "Men work together whether they work together or apart." - Robert Frost
* "What a pity that youth must be wasted on the young." - George Bernard Shaw
* "I can resist anything but temptation." - Oscar Wilde
* Here are the rules: Ignore all rules.
* The second sentence is false. The first sentence is true.

And on and on.

We can make sense of them given particular contexts, but they often prompt us to pull back and recognize the seeming contradictory point that is being made.

Or, in some cases, we can't make sense of them at all.

One might think that the lyric refers just to some personal spat. Au fait listeners may suspect that Swift is taking aim at Kanye West or Kim Kardashian West. Such listeners will know that the then-husband-and-wife claimed that Swift had done something which she denies doing [namely, approve a lyric).

I know absolutely nothing about this particular "spat" but it doesn't make how tricky human language can become in regard to encompassing things as they really are.

And then the part that I always focus in on: language that revolves around human interactions in the is/ought world. We all use the same words in defending our own moral and political value judgments, but we can never seem to pin down which dictionary definition of the words are most applicable such that one side or the other is able to demonstrate that their own understanding of the words reflects the most rational and virtuous assessment of an issue.

Then the part where philosophers explore all of this more...technically?

But more than a shallow pop issue, Swift’s Statement concerns a deep philosophical one: that of ‘ungrounded’ sentences. I shall use Swift’s lyric to introduce four famous paradoxes: the Liar, Epimenides’, the Truth-Teller, and the No-No paradoxes. I’ll also argue that while one might think Swift’s Statement is a version of the Liar paradox, it is in fact a version of the Truth-Teller paradox, and, when conjoined with another sentence, forms a version of the No-No paradox. In short, Swift’s ‘liar’ paradox is not the Liar, but it is nonetheless a paradox.

Now, our task here is to think about these paradoxes and attempt to situate them out in the world of our own interactions with others. At what point do we get "stuck" and recognize that there is no definitive understanding of things as they are objectively?

That, in other words, language itself can only go in so far in regard to establishing the most rational frame of mind.

[iambiguous]

Taylor Swift’s Liar Paradox
With the help of renowned logician Taylor Swift, Theresa Helke introduces four fundamental paradoxes: the Liar, Epimenides’, the Truth-Teller, and the No-No.

Getting Started

To show that Swift’s Statement is not a version of the Liar paradox (which I’ll introduce in a sec), I need to define two terms and acknowledge three assumptions.

Definitions:

A liar: someone who says only false things; and

A truth-teller: someone who says only true things.

Here of course I go back to the distinction I make between a truth and a lie pertaining to the either/or world or to the is/ought world.

In regard to the laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us and the logical rules of language, something either is true or it is not. Only when we go all the way out to the very end of the metaphysical limb...to things pertaining to the Big Questions in regard to the very, very large and the very, very small can ambiguities and uncertainties begin to pop up.

But...

In regard to the is/ought world, what of a truth and a lie then? Joe Biden is now president of the United States. That's true for all of us. Well, except for the MAGA crowd who insist that in fact Donald Trump is still president.

On the other hand, is it true or false that Joe Biden is a great president?

It's true that certain celebrities have had an abortion: https://people.com/health/celebrity-abo ... ela-jamil/

Is it true that their abortions were immoral?

One could examine the paradox with a different set of definitions: for example, a liar is someone who says some true things as well as some false things.

Same thing though. What things said to be true, what things said to be false.

Then the part I focus in on: The manner in which in regard to value judgments our convictions are rooted far more in dasein [as subjective, existential prejudices] than in anything that philosophers/ethicists can convey in the way of an essential deontological morality.

[Iwannaplato]

Ah, this post again!!

Taylor Swift’s Liar Paradox
With the help of renowned logician Taylor Swift, Theresa Helke introduces four fundamental paradoxes: the Liar, Epimenides’, the Truth-Teller, and the No-No.

Consider the following statement:

“All the liars are calling me one.”

It’s a lyric. The singer-songwriter Taylor Swift sings it in ‘Call It What You Want’ from her album Reputation. In doing so, Swift states that all liars are calling her a liar. We shall call this statement ‘Swift’s Statement’.

I think that sentence communicates just fine and I'm not convinced by the very odd argument in the linked article that it is a paradox, even the truth teller version. Anyone in her audience would know what she meant - even if they don't know the specific spat. People are trash talking her and those that are are liars.

What this exposes, in my view, is just one particular context in which human language gets all tangled up in its own inherent limitations. Like Nick Lowe suggesting that "all men are liars and that's the truth".

And there we have a paradox. We cannot come up with a message. Unless the context made it clear. Like if he means that at some point all men lie and the situation is him breaking through to a more sincere communication in general.

All the seeming paradoxes -- Swift Statements -- that can pop up:

* Save money by spending it.

Could easily not be paradoxical in context. If the author is suggesting buying Gold suggesting that over time this will earn more interest than in a bank. That's one possible situation. There could be others. Including psychological reasons why in the long one one develops a different relationship with money and this saves money. Perhaps they are right, perhaps they are wrong, but the sentence can be meaningful in context. Or it could be paradoxical.

* If I know one thing, it's that I know nothing.

Yeah, paradoxical. But then that's taking it completly literally. We are not saying these things in scientific papers. We have dozens of tropes in English: hyperbole, metaphors, metonomies and so on. Meaning is conveyed in complex ways with some types of language. Here the idea is that the person has some strong caution about assuming they are right or know a lot or cannot learn from someone, etc. And context could make this clearer.

* This is the beginning of the end.

Jeez, even take it literally and it makes sense.

* Deep down, you're really shallow.

It's funny, but it could be easily non-paradoxical. Perhaps they read great literature, but only to get sex - it works wherever they are. And so on. They seem, on the surface, to have what are considered deep interests, but actually they are in the interest of what are considered (by the speaker) as shallow goals. Has no interest in the characters, themes, beauty of a work of literature, but likes walking around the quad reading Tolstoy and can manage to answer basic questions about the text.

* I'm a compulsive liar.

Perfectly clear sentence, for example, in the context where someone has been confronted by a group of irate family members and stops pretending they are honest and say that. A transitional sentence.

* "Men work together whether they work together or apart." - Robert Frost

If it came from a poem, who knows. But an easy meaning can be that we are always collaborating, even when alone. We have read books, heard people say things, and build on the knowledge of others, even when alone and not always consciously. Of course it depends on the context.

* "What a pity that youth must be wasted on the young." - George Bernard Shaw

Not a paradox. Youth - healthy, energy and so on is wasted on those without the wisdom to use it well. Unless we take youth to necessarily include the cognition and priorities of young people. And that's what he meant.

* "I can resist anything but temptation." - Oscar Wilde

He can resist oppressors, boredom, bad ideas, but not a sexy man.

* Here are the rules: Ignore all rules.

Yeah, that's a fairly paradoxical imperative.

* The second sentence is false. The first sentence is true.

Likewise. Also a real timewaster. At least with the penultimate Swiftism, we could in many context understand the suggestion.

And on and on.

We can make sense of them given particular contexts, but they often prompt us to pull back and recognize the seeming contradictory point that is being made.

Ah, good, yes contexts can make sense of them. That's true for nearly all language. We need the contest. 'It's him.' is pretty meaningless.
But also...
We can make sense of them given particular contexts, AND they often prompt us to pull back and recognize the seeming contradictory point that is being made.

Or, in some cases, we can't make sense of them at all.

Sure, communication can fail and sometimes it is not even intended to succeed.

Now, our task here is to think about these paradoxes and attempt to situate them out in the world of our own interactions with others. At what point do we get "stuck" and recognize that there is no definitive understanding of things as they are objectively?

It'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.

That, in other words, language itself can only go in so far in regard to establishing the most rational frame of mind.

Hard to disagree with something so vague.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think that sentence communicates just fine and I'm not convinced by the very odd argument in the linked article that it is a paradox,

I don't think the article is arguing it's a paradox. If you read the last two paragraphs of the article, you might find what I've found: that in the end, the article doesn't really seem to be saying anything at all.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't think the article is arguing it's a paradox. If you read the last two paragraphs of the article, you might find what I've found: that in the end, the article doesn't really seem to be saying anything at all.

Well, she seems to be saying it's a kind of paradox

Instead, here, the ungrounded Swift’s Statement is a version of the Truth-Teller paradox.

and then in the conclusion

we can devise sentences which are consistent but whose truth is ungrounded. Swift’s Statement – ‘All the liars are calling me one’ – is such a sentence. It might be true, and it might be false, but there’s nothing which seems to make it true, and nothing which seems to make it false.

Where that word 'ungrounded' comes up again.

I just don't see that as a paradox, though she seems to. To me that would mean the police ask me if I stole a camera from the store. I say 'I didn't steal anything.'

It could be true. It could be false. The sentence is ungrounded. But then a sentence doesn't have to support it's assertions. It can be a bare assertion. I found her thinking on this strange.

Yes, if that sentence is treated as an argument by the speaker, there's a problem.

[Flannel Jesus]

I just don't see that as a paradox, though she seems to. To me that would mean the police ask me if I stole a camera from the store. I say 'I didn't steal anything.'

It could be true. It could be false. The sentence is ungrounded. But then a sentence doesn't have to support it's assertions. It can be a bare assertion. I found her thinking on this strange.

Precisely why I think it's not really saying anything. The author agrees with you that it could be true or false. But... all statements might be true or false. So, the conclusion of the article is just saying, this is a normal statement like most statements, in that it might be true or false? You spent all those words just to say that?

[Iwannaplato]

I just don't see that as a paradox, though she seems to. To me that would mean the police ask me if I stole a camera from the store. I say 'I didn't steal anything.'

It could be true. It could be false. The sentence is ungrounded. But then a sentence doesn't have to support it's assertions. It can be a bare assertion. I found her thinking on this strange.

Precisely why I think it's not really saying anything. The author agrees with you that it could be true or false. But... all statements might be true or false. So, the conclusion of the article is just saying, this is a normal statement like most statements, in that it might be true or false? You spent all those words just to say that?

And calling it an example of the truth teller's paradox seems like some hilarious hyperbole to me.

[Flannel Jesus]

calling it an example of the truth teller's paradox seems like some hilarious hyperbole to me.

Sorry, I misread it before, she is saying something more ambitious than "it's a normal statement which might be true or false"... at first. At first she's arguing for that, and you're right, she's misjudged it I think.

The truth teller scenario is interesting in that it's not a paradox, but it is entirely self referential and therefore doesn't really refer to any particular state of the world. It is self-contained and it's truth value doesn't seem to touch on anything outside of itself, and is therefore close to or entirely meaningless.

Taylor Swift's statement is not merely self referential, it does touch on things outside of itself, and therefore is not meaningless, it has meaning: there is a difference between the world in which it's true and the world in which it's false.

I agree with you.

[Iwannaplato]

I agree with you.

[iambiguous]

Ah, this post again!!

Again, because I posted it in my language thread, but forgot to post it the PN magazine thread as well.

Hope that clears it up.

Taylor Swift’s Liar Paradox
With the help of renowned logician Taylor Swift, Theresa Helke introduces four fundamental paradoxes: the Liar, Epimenides’, the Truth-Teller, and the No-No.

Consider the following statement:

“All the liars are calling me one.”

It’s a lyric. The singer-songwriter Taylor Swift sings it in ‘Call It What You Want’ from her album Reputation. In doing so, Swift states that all liars are calling her a liar. We shall call this statement ‘Swift’s Statement’.

I think that sentence communicates just fine and I'm not convinced by the very odd argument in the linked article that it is a paradox, even the truth teller version. Anyone in her audience would know what she meant - even if they don't know the specific spat. People are trash talking her and those that are are liars.

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.

Me? Well, if a liar calls her a liar then it would seem that, on the contrary, they do not deem her to be a liar at all. Because in calling her one they are lying. But how many liars are actually cognizant of the fact that they are lying about something they say that she said. And that others will recognize that they are actually saying that she was telling the truth?

Though of course that's only to the extent that my take on this is not an intentional lie on my part. You'll have to, as henry quirk might suggest, "intuit" that part.

Or, uh, something like that?

What this exposes, in my view, is just one particular context in which human language gets all tangled up in its own inherent limitations. Like Nick Lowe suggesting that "all men are liars and that's the truth".

And there we have a paradox. We cannot come up with a message. Unless the context made it clear. Like if he means that at some point all men lie and the situation is him breaking through to a more sincere communication in general.

This is the part where I suggest...

"We'll need a context of course".

After all, if a man says "Juneteenth is not a federal holiday now here in America", he would be lying. But if he said, "Juneteenth should never have been made a federal holiday here in America", is that a lie?

But, yes, if a man say all men are liars and that's the truth then what for all practical purpose are we to make of that. It's where language itself gets all tangled up between words and worlds.

Or, uh, something like that?

As for all the rest of them, you tell me.

[Iwannaplato]

Me? Well, if a liar calls her a liar then it would seem that, on the contrary, they do not deem her to be a liar at all. Because in calling her one they are lying. But how many liars are actually cognizant of the fact that they are lying about something they say that she said. And that others will recognize that they are actually saying that she was telling the truth?

You're jumping from the meaning of her statement to what might or might not be going on in them. Could 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.

No 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.

She is thinks they are lying about her. People do do that. Make up shit about other people: that is, lie about them.

It's perfectly coherent. She might be wrong - in her song lyric's assertion. But possibly being wrong does not a paradox make. In fact it tends to rule out that it is a paradox if an assertion might be wrong.

What this exposes, in my view, is just one particular context in which human language gets all tangled up in its own inherent limitations. Like Nick Lowe suggesting that "all men are liars and that's the truth".

And there we have a paradox. We cannot come up with a message. Unless the context made it clear. Like if he means that at some point all men lie and the situation is him breaking through to a more sincere communication in general.

This is the part where I suggest...

"We'll need a context of course".

Well, you could have done that.

You seemed to draw - I say seemed - some broad conclusions about language and communication from some sentences that might or might not be paradoxes.

Perhaps a context for how you see those paradoxes as indicating something more general about language would be helpful. And how general?

[iambiguous]

Me? Well, if a liar calls her a liar then it would seem that, on the contrary, they do not deem her to be a liar at all. Because in calling her one they are lying. But how many liars are actually cognizant of the fact that they are lying about something they say that she said. And that others will recognize that they are actually saying that she was telling the truth?

You're jumping from the meaning of her statement to what might or might not be going on in them.

"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?

Could 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.

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.

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?

No 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.

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.