phaze 91 Report post Posted July 5, 2016 On 6/18/2016 at 8:00 AM, Flyt4th said: ITS TOTALLY OBVIOUS. HE DOESN'T SHAVE Then hasn't he broken his creed. Mind you he has already broken his promise to all the women and children who do not shave themselves because they have no need to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joshuagenes 0 Report post Posted October 10, 2016 No one shaves the barber if he is a tranny or a woman or a child that doesn't have facial hair to shave or he has had his beard lasered off or he uses Nair hair removal. You don't need to shave those who don't have hair to shave. This is implied by the nature of shaving due to shaving needs. No one shaves the barber if he is a tranny or a woman or a child that doesn't have facial hair to shave or he has had his beard lasered off or he uses Nair hair removal. You don't need to shave those who don't have hair to shave. This is implied by the nature of shaving due to shaving needs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyler 0 Report post Posted October 6, 2017 Himself. The barber shaves himself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magicalwiper 0 Report post Posted May 30, 2018 Simple really, there is nothing saying that the barber lives in the village, therefore he is able to go to another barber because he does not live in the village Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex Randall 5th 0 Report post Posted June 1 The barber is a woman. She does not shave. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gremlin12 0 Report post Posted December 6 (edited) The solution is simply that there is no such barber (and neither could there be). It's not really a paradox because the solution is so simple (as Russell himself notes in, I think, *Philosophy of Logical Atomism*--it's not actually his paradox, but was suggested to him as a paradox and he disagreed). The real Russellian paradoxes begin with the paradox of the class of classes that are not members of themselves. Is this class a member of itself? If yes, then no; if no, then yes. Contradiction. (How about the property of being a property that doesn't characterize itself? There are many more.) Like the Barber, the simple class paradox can be superficially 'solved' by saying there's no such class (as opposed to Barber). But now we have a real paradox because it's not at all clear why there should be no such class. Edited December 6 by gremlin12 reformulation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
