Abstract
There is a little known paradox the solution to which is a guide to a much more thoroughgoing solution to a whole range of classic paradoxes. This is shown in this paper with respect to Berry’s Paradox, Heterologicality, Russell’s Paradox, and the Paradox of Predication, also the Liar and the Strengthened Liar, using primarily the epsilon calculus. The solutions, however, show not only that the first-order predicate calculus derived from Frege is inadequate as a basis for a clear science, and should be replaced with Hilbert and Bernays’ conservative extension. Standard second-order logic, and quantified propositional logic also must be substantially modified, to incorporate, in the first place, nominalizations of predicates, and whole sentences. And further modifications must be made, so as to insist that predicates are parts of sentences rather than forms of them, and that truth is a property of propositions rather than their sentential expressions. In all, a thorough reworking of what has been called ‘logic’ in recent years must be undertaken, to make it more fit for use.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Geach, P. T. and Black, M. (eds.) (1952) Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, Blackwell, Oxford.
Haack, S. (1978) Philosophy of Logics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kneale, W. (1972) Propositions and truth in natural languages, Mind 81, 225–243.
Kneale, W. and Kneale, M. (1962) The Development of Logic, Clarendon, Oxford.
Leisenring, A. C. (1969) Mathematical Logic and Hilbert’s Epsilon Symbol, Macdonald, London.
Prior, A. N. (1971) Objects of Thought, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Simmons, K. (1994) Paradoxes of denotation, Philosophical Studies 68, 71–106.
Slater, B. H. (2002) Logic Reformed, Peter Lang, Bern.
Slater, B. H. (forthcoming) Ramseying liars, Logic and Logical Philosophy.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Portions of this paper have previously been published in Logical Studies, vol. 9, http://www.logic.ru/LogStud/09/No9-06.html, and the Australasian Journal of Logic, vol. 2, http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/ajl/2004/2004_4.pdf.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Slater, H. Choice and Logic. J Philos Logic 34, 207–216 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-004-6371-6
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-004-6371-6