Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:11:05.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dialetheism and the Graphic Liar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Greg Littmann
Greg Littmann*
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL62125, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A Liar sentence is a sentence that, paradoxically, we cannot evaluate for truth in accordance with classical logic and semantics without arriving at a contradiction. For example, consider L

L L is false

If we assume that L is true, then given that what L says is ‘L is false,’ it follows that L is false. On the other hand, if we assume that L is false, then given that what L says is ‘L is false,’ it follows that L is true. Thus, L is an example of a Liar sentence.

Several philosophers have proposed that the Liar paradox, and related paradoxes, can be solved by accepting the contradictions that these paradoxes seem to imply (including Priest 2006, Rescher and Brandom 1980). The theory that there are true contradictions is known as ‘dialetheism’ and we may call this the ‘dialethic solution.’ One standard response to the dialethic solution to the Liar paradox and related paradoxes has been to attempt to develop new ‘revenge’ versions of the paradoxes that are not subject to the dialethic solution (e.g. Parsons 1990, Restall 2007, Shapiro 2007).

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 15 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

With thanks to Keith Simmons for his extremely helpful comments.

References

Bromand, J. 2002. ‘Why Paraconsistent Logic Can Only Tell Half the Truth,’ Mind 111: 741–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, A. 1993. ‘A Note on Priest's Hypercontradictions.’ Logique et Analyse 36: 39–43.Google Scholar
Field, H. 2008. Saving Truth from Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littmann, G. and Simmons, K.. 2004. ‘A Critique of Dialetheism.’ In The Law of Non-Contradiction, Priest, G. Beall, J.C. and Armour-Garb, B. eds., 314–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. 1990. ‘True Contradictions.’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 20: 335–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. 2002. ‘Paraconsistent Logic.’ In Handbook of Philosophical Logic (2nd edn.), Vol. 6, Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F. eds., 287–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. 2006. In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent (2nd ed.) New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, N. and Brandom, R.. 1980. The Logic of Inconsistency. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Restall, G. 2007. ‘Curry's Revenge: The Costs of Non-Classical Solutions to the Paradoxes of Self-Reference.’ In Revenge of the Liar: New Essays on the Paradox, Beall, J. ed., 262-71.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. 2007. ‘Burali-Forti's Revenge.’ In Revenge of the Liar: New Essays on the Paradox, Beall, J. ed., 320-44.Google Scholar
Smiley, T.J. 1993. ‘Can Contradiction be True?’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, suppl. Vol. 67: 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar