Any language $$\mathcal {L}$$ L of classical logic, of first- or higher-order, is expanded with sentential quantifiers and operators. The resulting language $$\mathcal {L}^+\!$$ L +, capable of self-reference without arithmetic or syntax encoding, can serve as its own metalanguage. The syntax of $$\mathcal {L}^+$$ L + is represented by directed graphs, and its semantics, which coincides with the classical one on $$\mathcal {L}$$ L, uses the graph-theoretic concepts of kernels and semikernels. Kernels provide an explosive semantics, while semikernels generalize (...) this to situations where paradoxes do not lead to explosion, thus distinguishing them from contradictions. Paradoxes arise only at the metalevel due to specific interpretations of the operators, but they can be avoided: $$\mathcal {L}^+$$ L + can express paradoxes but remains free from them. For an expansion $$\mathcal {L}^+$$ L + of any FOL language $$\mathcal {L}$$ L, with the non-explosive semantics, a complete reasoning system is obtained by extending Gentzen’s classical sequent calculus with two rules for the sentential quantifiers. Adding (cut) yields a complete system for the explosive semantics. The novel semantics and self-referential capabilities seem promising for a further extension of classical logic towards one capable also of consistently expressing its own syntax and truth theory. (shrink)

Several authors have argued that a version of Curry's paradox involving validity motivates rejecting the structural rule of contraction. This paper criticizes two recently suggested alternative responses to “validity Curry.” There are three salient stages in a validity Curry derivation. Rejecting contraction blocks the first, while the alternative responses focus on the second and third. I show that a distinguishing feature of validity Curry, as contrasted with more familiar forms of Curry's paradox, is that paradox arises already at the first (...) stage. Accordingly, blocking the second or third stages won't suffice for resolving the paradox. (shrink)

Rejecting structural contraction has been proposed as a strategy for escaping semantic paradoxes. The challenge for its advocates has been to make intuitive sense of how contraction might fail. I offer a way of doing so, based on a “naive” interpretation of the relation between structure and logical vocabulary in a sequent proof system. The naive interpretation of structure motivates the most common way of blaming Curry-style paradoxes on illicit contraction. By contrast, the naive interpretation will not as easily motivate (...) one recent noncontractive approach to the Liar paradox. (shrink)