Leaderboard

I don't quite understand the fascination with 'paradoxes' of this sort, which basically come down to which of the two statements are true, if any. I am blue. I am red. Am I blue or red? Maybe I'm green. Doesn't matter, both cannot be true. The truth is on the other side. The other side holds no truths. Or is that just it? We enjoy 'trapping' the mind in a room with mirrors on both the wall we are facing and the wall directly behind, and looking at the infinite reflections that result? I just don't get it. Can someone tell me what I am missing? I am reminded of the "bullet that pierces all vs. armour that cannot be pierced" contradiction. Similar situation, both just cannot exist. One is right, the other is wrong, or maybe both are wrong, but the contradictory elements cannot both be right.

What underlies paradoxes of this type is the syntactical rule that a declarative sentence is by its nature an assertion of some particular truth. To use a presumed assertion of truth to deny that same truth is paradoxical: One cannot convey usable knowledge by asserting a denial. Nor can one meaningfully deny a truth: the coin has two paradoxical sides: [1] "I am asserting a falsehood." or "I am lying." [2] "I am not asserting something that is true." or "I am not telling the truth." Putting it another way, it's physically possible to speak the words, "I am lying." But when one undertakes a linear analysis of what has happened when the words are spoken, one is drawn into the syntactical analogy of a Moebius Strip: a piece of paper having a physical connection of its two sides. The circular reasoning forced on the mind by a linear analysis of such statements creates a pleasantly frustrating tease, and the desire for consistency and meaning leaves one in a disturbingly uncomfortable state. Long live paradoxes...