Timeline for What is the exact form of law of non-contradiction that dialetheism rejects?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 24, 2021 at 20:50 | comment | added | nwr | ... further to my comment above, is it possible that the content which Priest identifies is in the paradox derived from the Liar sentence ( Liar and not(Liar) ), rather than in the Liar sentence itself. | |
| Jan 24, 2021 at 20:04 | comment | added | nwr | @DanielMak My "lazy" (unreferenced) answer is a paraphrase of what I recall from reading the text which you cite (The Law of Noncontradiction edited by Priest, et al.). I read it while I was still at uni, and this was the explanation of the Liar sentence that made the most sense to me at the time - namely that LNC applies only to propositional statements. I cannot recall whose paper provides this explanation, but I suspect that it was not Priest's introductory paper "What's so bad about contradictions?". Perhaps the content that Priest identifies is outside of a propositional calculus. | |
| Jan 24, 2021 at 15:12 | comment | added | Constantly confused | Would you mind pointing me to the relevant literature please? I don't think this is the position Priest takes because he explicitly said in 'What's so bad about contradictions?' that contradictions do have content (p.30 in 'The Law of non-contradiction', edited by Priest et al) | |
| Jan 22, 2021 at 23:07 | history | answered | nwr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |