Switch to: References

Citations of:

An exact measure of paradox

Analysis 73 (1):17-26 (2013)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Buddhist Epistemology and the Liar Paradox.Szymon Bogacz - 2024 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 102 (1):206-220.
    The liar paradox is still an open philosophical problem. Most contemporary answers to the paradox target the logical principles underlying the reasoning from the liar sentence to the paradoxical conclusion that the liar sentence is both true and false. In contrast to these answers, Buddhist epistemology offers resources to devise a distinctively epistemological approach to the liar paradox. In this paper, I mobilise these resources and argue that the liar sentence is what Buddhist epistemologists call a contradiction with one’s own (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Hegel’s Interpretation of the Liar Paradox.Franca D’Agostini & Elena Ficara - 2021 - History and Philosophy of Logic 43 (2):105-128.
    In his Lectures on the History of Philosophy, Hegel develops a subtle analysis of Megarian paradoxes: the Liar, the Veiled Man and the Sorites. In this paper, we focus on Hegel's interpretation of...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • There Is More to a Paradox Than Credence.George Darby & Jürgen Landes - 2014 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 3 (2):99-109.
    Besides the usual business of solving paradoxes, there has been recent philosophical work on their essential nature. Lycan characterises a paradox as “an inconsistent set of propositions, each of which is very plausible.” Building on this definition, Paseau offers a numerical measure of paradoxicality of a set of principles: a function of the degrees to which a subject believes the principles considered individually (all typically high) and of the degree to which the subject believes the principles considered together (typically low). (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Semantic Paradox: A Comparative Analysis of Scholastic and Analytic Views.Miroslav Hanke - 2014 - Res Philosophica 91 (3):367-386.
    Scholastic and analytic definitions of semantic paradoxes, in terms of groundlessness, circularity, and semantic pathology, are introduced and compared with each other. The fundamental intuitions used in these definitions are the concepts of being true about extralinguistic reality, of making statements about one’s self, and of compatibility with an underlying semantic theory. The three approaches—the groundlessness view, the circularity view, and the semantic pathology view—are shown to differ not only conceptually, but also in their applications. As both a means for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations