On Ramsey's classification of paradoxes

The problem of paradoxes is discussed in this paper. At the beginning of the 20th century the problem was presented by Bertrand Russell and Frank Ramsey. Russell thought all paradoxes as similar to each other. Ramsey asserted that they are divided into two completely different groups. The paradoxes of group A are logical paradoxes. The paradoxes of group B are semantic (linguistic) paradoxes. The paradoxes of group A are connected with problems of some logical and mathematical concepts. The paradoxes of group B are connected with problems of linguistic expression of concepts. In the second half of the 20th century Ramsey's point of view was dominant. The modern Australian logician Graham Priest affirms that Russell was right and Ramsey was wrong for all paradoxes have a common structure and one way to solve them. The authors of this paper assert that it is a difficult task to distinguish paradoxes on Ramsey's basis because there are so-called “frontier paradoxes”. These paradoxes can be interpreted to be logical as well as semantic paradoxes. But it does not mean that Ramsey was wrong at all. The authors think that Priest's assessment of Ramsey's classification of paradoxes is incorrect. Ramsey's classification is meaningful but it should be corrected. As a conclusion, the authors offer the project of a new classification of paradoxes. Ramsey's classification may be retained but it would be supplemented. The classification should consist of three groups of paradoxes: A (pure logical paradoxes), B (pure linguistic paradoxes) and C (frontier paradoxes).

Keywords

Authors

References