Critical analysis of the hierarchical approach to the solution of the paradox problem | Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2018. № 44. DOI: 10.17223/1998863Х/44/2

Critical analysis of the hierarchical approach to the solution of the paradox problem

The problem of logical paradoxes is considered in the article. In the first half of the 20th century, a hierarchical approach to solving paradoxes was formulated in the works of Bertrand Russell and Alfred Tarski. From the point of view of this approach the main reason for paradoxes is self-reference. Hence, the hierarchical approach completely prohibits self-reference in thinking and language. This is a solution to the paradox problem in the context of the approach. In the second half of the 20th century, the point of view of the hierarchical approach became generally accepted. Many encyclopedic philosophical writings consider the hierarchical approach as a clear and acceptable way of solving the paradox problem. However, in the research literature on logic, epistemology and the philosophy of mathematics in recent decades there appeared works criticising the hierarchical approach in various aspects. In particular, it was asserted that a) the hierarchical approach generates "revenge problems"; b) the hierarchical approach places undesirable limits for the development of mathematical theories and forces to abandon important results in the field of the philosophy of mathematics; c) the hierarchical approach is too radical for, first, some self-referential statements are paradoxical by accident and, second, some self-referential statements are obviously not paradoxical; d) the hierarchical approach does not cover all paradoxes for paradoxes can be formulated without self-reference; e) the hierarchical approach is absurd from a common sense point of view. Nevertheless, these critical studies were sporadic and unsystematic. Separately, they could not destroy the authority of the hierarchical approach to solving the paradox problem. The author of this article aims to accumulate various critical arguments to the hierarchical approach that were expressed in the research literature in order to demonstrate the importance of the whole variety of critical views, to show the vulnerability of the hierarchical approach in various aspects and to call into question the adequacy of this approach to solving the paradox problem.

Download file
Counter downloads: 265

Keywords

парадокс, иерархический подход, Рассел, Тарский, теория типов, язык, метаязык, самореферентность, paradox, hierarchical approach, Russell, Tarski, theory of types, language, metalanguage, self-reference

Authors

NameOrganizationE-mail
Ladov Vsevolod A.Tomsk State Universityladov@yandex.ru
Всего: 1

References

Рассел Б. Математическая логика, основанная на теории типов // Логика, онтология, язык. Томск, 2006. С. 16-62.
Tarski A. The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages // Logic, Semantics, Metamathemat-ics. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1956. P. 152-278.
Field H. A Revenge-Immune Solution to the Semantic Paradoxes // Journal of Philosophical Logic. 2003. № 32. P. 139-177.
Weiss P. The Theory of Types // Mind. 1928. Vol. 37, № 147. P. 338-348.
Fitch F. Self-Reference in Philosophy // Mind. 1946. Vol. 55, № 217. P. 64-73.
Патнем Х. Реализм с человеческим лицом // Аналитическая философия: становление и развитие. М. : ДИК, 1998. С. 466-494.
Anderson A.P. St. Paul's Epistle to Titus // The Paradox of the Liar. New Haven and London, 1970. P. 1-11.
Крипке С. Очерк теории истины // Язык, истина, существование. Томск : Изд-во Том. ун-та, 2002. С. 151-183.
Smith P. An Introduction to Godel's Theorem (second edition). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Целищев В.В. Истинность неразрешимых предложений в свете первой теоремы Геделя о неполноте // Вестник Томского государственного университета. 2017. № 421. С. 53-58.
Godel K. On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I // Collected Works of Kurt Godel. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1986.
Barwise J., Etchemendy J. The Liar. An Essay on Truth and Circularity. New York, Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1987.
Yaqub A. The Liar Speaks the Truth. A Defense of the Revision Theory of Ttuth. New York, Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1993.
Bolander T. Essay: Self-reference and Logic // ONEWS. 2002. № 1, April. P. 9-43.
Beall Jc. A Neglected Deflationist Approach to the Liar // Analysis. 2001. Vol. 61 (2), April. P. 126-129.
Вригт Г.Х. фон. Гетерологический парадокс // Логико-философские исследования : избранные труды. М. : Прогресс, 1986.
Лобовиков В.О. Проблема неполноты формально определенных систем норм позитивного права, первая теорема Геделя о неполноте и юридические фикции как важный компонент юридической техники // Научный вестник Омской академии МВД России. 2013. № 2 (49). С. 53-57.
Gupta A. Truth and Paradox // Journal of Philosophical Logic. 1982. № 11. P. 1-60.
YabloS. Paradox without Self-reference // Analysis. 1993. Vol. 53. P. 251-252.
Priest G. The Structure of the Paradoxes of Self-Reference // Mind. 1994. Vol. 103, № 409. P. 25-34.
Tennant N. On paradox without self-reference // Analysis. 1995. № 55. P. 199-207.
Martin R. Toward a Solution to the Liar Paradox // The Philosophical Review. 1967. Vol. 76, № 3. P. 279-311.
 Critical analysis of the hierarchical approach to the solution of the paradox problem | Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2018. № 44. DOI: 10.17223/1998863Х/44/2

Critical analysis of the hierarchical approach to the solution of the paradox problem | Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2018. № 44. DOI: 10.17223/1998863Х/44/2

Download full-text version
Counter downloads: 3725