Paradoxes are anything *but* nonsense. My favorite author even credits it and the "crazy" things akin to it as: "Their [the crazy philosophies'] most important advantage over the sensible philosophies is that they come far closer to the truth!" [†]
As for "the theory", Tarski had quite a bit to say about reasoning from paradox. Frank's invocation of meta-math tells a more hygienic story. But my guess is you'd be more comfortable with Tarski. If you haven't read it, you might consider section 6 (the Summary) of Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages: http://www.irafs.org/materials/wld19/tarski_concept_truth_formalized_languages.pdf Barwise & Moss have a fantastic book on the subject, Vicious Circles. But it may also be too mathy. They are decidedly "Western". 8^) If you want something spiced with a tiny bit of Eastern, we have the tried and true Gödel, Escher, Bach, by Hofstadter. [†] The Tao is Silent, Raymond Smullyan. On 3/15/20 9:39 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Now you might (others have) insisted that while the statement is a logical > paradox (I would call paradoxes non-sense), the contemplation of paradoxes > might lead me to knowledge. I worry this might even be one of the methods > you prescribe when you speak of a deep dive. If so, I guess I have a right > to ask (at least in Western Practice) what is the theory that tells you that > these methods will lead to truth or wisdom, etc. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
