Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Self-Referential Analysis

A self-referentially inconsistent statement undercuts itself. It denies or cannot explain something that's required for that statement itself to make sense and be true.

Also, a self-referentially inconsistent statement itself in its own subject matter. Hence, it refers to itself. But a self-referentially inconsistent statement can't explain or justify itself, just as universal skepticism puts itself into the same doubt in which it puts other kinds of knowledge.

In a similar way, anyone who says that something can both be and not be thereby shows the impossibility of their own view.

They cannot say anything, because on their own view words can have no significance.

Moroever, assuming that the same thing can both be and not be, the contradictory of that assumption can be used with equal propriety.

Thus, whatever might be designated as A can be designated as non-A.

“Whatever might be designated as A can be designated as non-A” implies that words have no definite meanings, or even the minimum condition for definite meaning.

In asserting that ‘whatever might be designated as A can be designated as non-A’, one must say something with a meaning that is not completely indeterminate.

In asserting that ‘whatever might be designated as A can be designated as non-A’, one makes use of what one explicitly denies.

To assert that ‘whatever might be designated as A can be designated as non-A’, is to listen to reason while one disowns it.

No comments: