🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1476@eouk13.eoe.co.uk> pwestlak@eoe.co.uk (Peter Westlake) writes:

   Please forgive me if this is a naive question (or even completely stupid :-)

   The way I have heard the original Cretan liar paradox expressed is that
   Epiminedes, a Cretan, said "All Cretans are liars". The reasoning goes that
   as Epiminedes is known to be from Crete, he therefore claims to be a liar, 
   and therefore claims not to be, which is a paradox.  But it seems to me
   (in my ignorance) that this statement permits a consistent interpretation,
   namely that SOME Cretans are liars, and that Epiminedes is one of them.
   By supposing the existence of other Cretans, we avoid a paradox.

   So a) I have the original statement wrong
   or b) it never was a paradox really
   or c) I have missed something obvious and everything I say is false.
   Break it to me gently, especially if I have misspelled "Epi.*".


I think you misspelled Epimenides, but you're right about it's not being
paradoxical, as stated.  I think that his statement was enough to make people
realize, though, that something very similar was going to be really paradoxical
("This very sentence is false").

Kripke, who's always entertaining, says that the statement is quoted by St.
Paul in one of the Epistles, who writes that Epimenides, even one of their own,
states that all Cretans are liars.  St Paul adds, "This testimony is true."
Paul seems to have missed the logical subtlety here.

	Joshua Guttman