Week 2 Philosophical Paradoxes
Russel The problems of philosophy page 25
See also W. V. O. Quine
Examples of Paradox
- Paradox of Analysis
Linguistic meaning relationship with phil concepts
How a one-to-one mapping shall be established between language and phil
- Whether A=B can deduct equivalence of A and B's meanings
- Prof uses a case of snow and its German "schnee" thus A=B is trivial or not
- Moore's Paradox
- It is raining, but I don't believe that it is raining
- What seems to be an easy solution would create problems somewhere down the line
- Russel's Paradox（罗素悖论，见集合论与图论）
- Barber Parado 见理发师悖论
- Liar Paradox
- "This statement is a lie" is a lie
- Paradox of Omnipotence（无所不能）
- Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift
- Paradox of Inference （推理悖论）
推理既是获取新知识的过程，同时又似乎不可能从逻辑上包含于前提中的信息中产生新的知识。
What you have just done is using the same structure again, why am I justified to follow you and reason it?
附录：Nature of paradoxes
Paradox = inconsistent set of individually plausible propositions
The Sorites Paradox 沙堆谬误
Argument:
- A pile of 10,000 grains is a heap
if collection of grains is a heap, so is the set of - So one grain is a heap
如何理解沙堆悖论？ - 奉奉奉的回答 - 知乎https://www.zhihu.com/question/356516585/answer/928354392
Proposed solutions:
- Epistemicism: shall there be sharp cut-off points; vagueness is ignorance
- Degrees of truth: How important it is to find the "cut-off point"
- Supervaluationism: Vagueness requires higher-order truth values
"Epistemological"（认识论的）和"epistemic"（知识论的）这两个词都与知识和认识过程的研究相关，但它们的用途和含义有细微差别。
-
Epistemological（认识论的）：这个词是形容词，源自于名词"epistemology"（认识论），指的是哲学的一个分支，专注于研究知识的本质、起源、结构、方法以及知识获取的有效性。当我们说某个问题或讨论是"epistemological"，我们指的是它与探索或评估知识的理论和原则有关。
-
Epistemic（知识论的）：这个词同样是形容词，与知识（episteme）相关，强调的是与知识本身有关的属性或状态。"Epistemic"常用于描述与知识的验证、理解、或正当性相关的特性或条件。例如，"epistemic justification"（知识论的正当化）关注的是信念被接受为知识的条件。
尽管这两个词在某些语境下可以互换使用，但"epistemological"更多地用于指代认识论这一哲学领域本身及其相关的探讨，而"epistemic"则更侧重于与知识的性质、产生和评价标准有关的特性或问题。简而言之，"epistemological"关注的是认识论的哲学研究，而"epistemic"则更多关注于知识的质量和条件。
Heap, the Bald Man) [see Clark] Proposed solutions• Epistemicism (‘there exist sharp cut-off points; vagueness is ignorance’)• Degrees of truth (‘truth comes in degrees’)• Supervaluationism (‘vagueness requires higher-order truth values’) The problem of higher-order vagu
show annotation