On grammar and logical fallacy

[Contemporary Protestant]

Is the liars paradox, even real? It seems like a grammatical nuance to me, and that the statement "im lying right now" could be more effectively expressed in something other than English. I also see some people make arguments based on language and not fact; ie nothing is something and the like

[Baruch]

There is an actual rigorous liars paradox in set theory addressed over 100 years ago.  But any argument using non-technical language ... has many avenues for agreement and disagreement.

Whether philosophy is limited by the language we use to express it or not ... is also an open question.  The original liar's paradox dates back to ancient Greece ... "I am a Cretan, but all Cretan's are liars ... so what am I?"

[Contemporary Protestant]

Thanks for clarifying; that makes more sense

And thats the heart of my question is language and whether or not it presents an actual limitation or merely shows the flaws of said language

[Baruch]

Thanks for clarifying; that makes more sense

And thats the heart of my question is language and whether or not it presents an actual limitation or merely shows the flaws of said language

Philosophy of language and its applied form, linguistics ... are worthy subjects.

Let me illustrate what communication is for humans (not for telephones) ... if I have had an experience of fishing ... and you have not ... it is harder for me to communicate to you what fishing is like.  Because we have a large vocabulary, while it is harder, it isn't impossible.  But let us assume that you don't know what I am talking about, when I try to discuss fishing with you.  I might have to describe what a fish is, where fish live, why it is fun to fish, what you can do with a fish after you catch one etc.  Eventually, by integrating our conversation, you will have built an idea of fishing in your head ... maybe not as good as if you had actually gone fishing.  Then I go fishing again, and want to tell you all about it ... what is actually happening?  I have an idea/memory of fishing in my head, and I am going to describe it to you, give you an artificial experience of it, as if you have been there with me.  In communicating using a language, I am sending a set of semaphores to you, a code.  This is like putting a value in the input of a function.  The output of the function is you understand what happened to me when I went fishing.  The actual content was in my head, and the potential content was in your head, and I sent a code to trigger thoughts in your head.  The idea of fishing never was there in the language, because the idea is much more than the communication.  You had to have the function in your head, that can receive my semaphore/code ... however you got that function, by actual experience or by artificial construction thru a prior conversation.

In Information Theory, we pretend that the full message is in the communication.  This can be the case if you are engineering a phone system ... the message in that case is actually just voltages ... that have no specific human meaning ... they can be any pattern of voltages.  These are abstractions, which means they are simplified versions of reality, not reality itself.  So when we say a language is a set of symbols that are transmitted from one person to another ... this is begging the question.  That language will not be understood, unless there are two humans of similar culture at each end (specifically who use the same language ... but also both have to know something about fishing).  Language is a means of inter-being between two living beings.  And I reserve the word being, for the living.  Existence is a more general word ... a rock exists, but it doesn't have being.  This web site is a means of inter-being in a many to many matrix.  But it isn't the little varying voltages inside your computer or your cable line ... those don't have meaning in themselves ... only living beings give them meaning, and only if they meet the criteria mentioned earlier.  Otherwise the voltages are gibberish.

Linguistics is simply the current status and prior history of how human beings have communicated via language.  It embraces the entire world of the people who share the same language and same culture, in so far as this can be conveyed in language.  The history of language, is the history of humanity for the last 5000 years.  Whether one language or another is more or less fit for a particular purpose or culture ... is an advanced and disputed question.

[Sal1981]

Is the liars paradox, even real? It seems like a grammatical nuance to me, and that the statement "im lying right now" could be more effectively expressed in something other than English. I also see some people make arguments based on language and not fact; ie nothing is something and the like

I think it's just the way we're able to, via language to express irrational, illogical concepts. I can use language to construct concepts which are impossible to "translate" to the real world, the typical example being using words like a "square circle". Easy to write with a keyboard, impossible to visualize.

But I think this is just the power of language; to use incompatible concepts to write out irrational and illogical sentences.

[SGOS]

I think it's just the way we're able to, via language to express irrational, illogical concepts. I can use language to construct concepts which are impossible to "translate" to the real world, the typical example being using words like a "square circle". Easy to write with a keyboard, impossible to visualize.

But I think this is just the power of language; to use incompatible concepts to write out irrational and illogical sentences.

I agree.  Language is probably the most effective and powerful communication device to have evolved among living things, but it's a two edged sword.  It has many negatives that come with the "gift".  We can seduce ourselves with illogical arguments that couldn't exist without language.  We can construct logical arguments that would otherwise not be possible, too.

It goes back to what my biology teacher said one time.  "Evolution does not have to evolve into perfection.  Successful mutations just need to work better than other things."  Consequently, evolution also evolves into overall improvements that also come with some negative adaptations that no god would ever fashion.

[SGOS]

Is the liars paradox, even real? It seems like a grammatical nuance to me, and that the statement "im lying right now" could be more effectively expressed in something other than English. I also see some people make arguments based on language and not fact; ie nothing is something and the like

The liar's paradox is more like a child's joke.  It poses as a question, but leaves a person scratching their head, and almost feeling like they've been hoodwinked.  I don't see it as leading to any positive consequence, unless its just meant to be an example of an absurd question without an answer.  I do remember the first time I heard it.  I definitely had a light come on in my head:  "Ha, ha.  It's a funny joke," but I never stopped to dissect it to find something noteworthy about it.

[josephpalazzo]

Is the liars paradox, even real? It seems like a grammatical nuance to me, and that the statement "im lying right now" could be more effectively expressed in something other than English. I also see some people make arguments based on language and not fact; ie nothing is something and the like

Just like you put symbols together and make an equation that doesn't describe anything in the real world, you can also put words together to make a sentence that doesn't describe anything in the real world. Both math and language are our creations, and with our imaginative creativity, we can use them to do many things: describing the real world and entertaining, are two such examples.

[Unbeliever]

There is an actual rigorous liars paradox in set theory addressed over 100 years ago.  But any argument using non-technical language ... has many avenues for agreement and disagreement.

Whether philosophy is limited by the language we use to express it or not ... is also an open question.  The original liar's paradox dates back to ancient Greece ... "I am a Cretan, but all Cretan's are liars ... so what am I?"

Yeah, that's even in the NT:

One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

Titus 1:12

[SoldierofFortune]

well, let's say that somebody is lying. if he ''can'' lie, you can't accuse of him lying.
as long as you can prove that he is lying. you can say him that he is lier.

[Solomon Zorn]

well, let's say that somebody is lying. if he ''can'' lie, you can't accuse of him lying.
as long as you can prove that he is lying. you can say him that he is lier.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/wlMegqgGORY

[Hakurei Reimu]

I have to say, it takes guts to have a smoke generator on the back of your head that long!

[Baruch]

I have to say, it takes guts to have a smoke generator on the back of your head that long!

Spock is half human, so he doesn't have to wear a smoke generator ... just tolerate Dr McCoy's jibbing without pinching his Col Sanders-head off.

Another episode involved the giant space amoeba.  A previous starship of all Vulcans, couldn't escape, because they were too logical also.