TRUTH AND PARADOX Consequences of the Liar Paradox for Formal Theories of Truth Is this sentence true or false? If it’s true, then what it says is true, but it says of itself that it’s false, and so it’s false! But if it’s false, then what it says is false, but it says of itself that it’s false, and so it’s true! Paradoxically, the sentence seems to be true and false at the same time. How can we solve this problem to construct a coherent formal theory of truth? Classical logic: there are some classical Non-classical logics: heterodox logics give as attempts to solve the Liar towards a consistent solution to the paradox the abandonment of concept of truth. The most influential of them certain classical principles, such as the Law of is Tarski’s theory of truth, but there are also Excluded Middle or the Ex Contradictione approaches through proof theory and model Quolibet, and thus moves to a non-classical theory. Another classical approach is called setting. Within those, I focus my study on contextualist, it argues that the Liar depends on Paraconsistent logics, Paracomplete logics contexts. and Dialetheism. Substructural logics: those approaches mold deep structures of logical reasoning to resolve the paradox. The non-contractive logic rejects the rules of contraction, and the non-transitive logic rejects the rule of cut of sequent calculus. My research’s objective: map the three kinds of solutions to the Liar Paradox, comparing their advantages and disadvantages and how each one of them understands the concept of truth.
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-