8 ideas
6007 | If you know your father, but don't recognise your father veiled, you know and don't know the same person [Eubulides, by Dancy,R] |
Full Idea: The 'undetected' or 'veiled' paradox of Eubulides says: if you know your father, and don't know the veiled person before you, but that person is your father, you both know and don't know the same person. | |
From: report of Eubulides (fragments/reports [c.390 BCE]) by R.M. Dancy - Megarian School | |
A reaction: Essentially an uninteresting equivocation on two senses of "know", but this paradox comes into its own when we try to give an account of how linguistic reference works. Frege's distinction of sense and reference tried to sort it out (Idea 4976). |
6006 | If you say truly that you are lying, you are lying [Eubulides, by Dancy,R] |
Full Idea: The liar paradox of Eubulides says 'if you state that you are lying, and state the truth, then you are lying'. | |
From: report of Eubulides (fragments/reports [c.390 BCE]) by R.M. Dancy - Megarian School | |
A reaction: (also Cic. Acad. 2.95) Don't say it, then. These kind of paradoxes of self-reference eventually lead to Russell's 'barber' paradox and his Theory of Types. |
6008 | Removing one grain doesn't destroy a heap, so a heap can't be destroyed [Eubulides, by Dancy,R] |
Full Idea: The 'sorites' paradox of Eubulides says: if you take one grain of sand from a heap (soros), what is left is still a heap; so no matter how many grains of sand you take one by one, the result is always a heap. | |
From: report of Eubulides (fragments/reports [c.390 BCE]) by R.M. Dancy - Megarian School | |
A reaction: (also Cic. Acad. 2.49) This is a very nice paradox, which goes to the heart of our bewilderment when we try to fully understand reality. It homes in on problems of identity, as best exemplified in the Ship of Theseus (Ideas 1212 + 1213). |
3914 | Language arranges sensory experience to form a world-order [Whorf] |
Full Idea: Language first of all is a classification and arrangement of the stream of sensory experience which results in a certain world-order. | |
From: Benjamin Lee Whorf (Punctual and segmentive Hopi verbs [1936], p.55) | |
A reaction: This is only true to a limited degree. See Davidson's 'On the very idea of a conceptual scheme'. All humans share a world-order, to some extent. |
3916 | Hopi consistently prefers verbs and events to nouns and things [Whorf] |
Full Idea: Hopi, with its preference for verbs, as contrasted to our own liking for nouns, perpetually turns our propositions about things into propositions about events. | |
From: Benjamin Lee Whorf (An American Indian model of the Universe [1936], p.63) | |
A reaction: This should provoke careful thought about ontology - without concluding that it is entirely relative to language. |
3917 | Scientific thought is essentially a specialised part of Indo-European languages [Whorf] |
Full Idea: What we call "scientific thought" is a specialisation of the western Indo-European type of language. | |
From: Benjamin Lee Whorf (An American Indian model of the Universe [1936], p.246) | |
A reaction: This is the beginnings of an absurd extreme relativist view of science, based on a confusion about meaning and thought. |
6005 | Animals are dangerous and nourishing, and can't form contracts of justice [Hermarchus, by Sedley] |
Full Idea: Hermarchus said that animal killing is justified by considerations of human safety and nourishment and by animals' inability to form contractual relations of justice with us. | |
From: report of Hermarchus (fragments/reports [c.270 BCE]) by David A. Sedley - Hermarchus | |
A reaction: Could the last argument be used to justify torturing animals? Or could we eat a human who was too brain-damaged to form contracts? |
3915 | The Hopi have no concept of time as something flowing from past to future [Whorf] |
Full Idea: A Hopi has no general notion or intuition of time as a smooth flowing continuum in which everything in the universe proceeds at an equal rate, out of a future, through a present, into a past. | |
From: Benjamin Lee Whorf (An American Indian model of the Universe [1936], p.57) | |
A reaction: If true, this would not so much support relativism of language as the view that that conception of time is actually false. |