🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <GUTTMAN.92Dec16164336@circe.mitre.org> guttman@circe.mitre.org (Joshua D. Guttman) writes:
>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 

There is a collection of essays by Quine called `Paradoxes and Other
Essays' which deals with the above paradox (nonparadox), with a quote
by St. Paul followed by a blurb by Quine.  The first essay deals with
antimonies in clear expository manner.