Maybe the framework must allow semantic paradoxes (if it is to allow reflections on validity); while the way we use this framework still avoids them. The method of avoidance cannot be fully articulated because this would, itself, generate an open question paradox.
And this will be the case, mutatis mutandis, whatever devices we might construct to deal with specific instances ...
It's easy to avoid the ones with indeterminable meanings (loops); but this can't be made into a rule? Maybe there are too many cases where the determinability of a meaning cannot be determined.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment