🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec28.203018.18876@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1hntpkINNnp8@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> 
>PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu (Jamie) writes:
>
>>But, I don't understand how using unreified predicates instead of
>>objects helps avoid set theoretic paradoxes. Grelling's paradox
>>uses only a predicate, and (unless I'm very confused) does not
>>require reification.
>
>You are very confused.  If Grelling's paradox is regarded as purely
>syntactical, then it is unproblematic on a Quinian view that requires
>stratification (as spurious as such a requirement might be); if, on
>the other hand, it is regarded as semantical, then the contradiction
>depends on the assumption that the predicate "...is heterological"
>expresses a _bona fide_ property.

Thanks, Mikhail, for identifying the paradox!  I don't see the
relevance of stratification to the syntactical version of Grelling's
paradox; unless you are referring to my own recent proposal vis-a-vis
stratification and semantic paradoxes?  But the obvious interpretation
involves _properties_, which are reified predicates, as Mikhail points
out.

>
>>Jamie
>
>cordially,
>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu