more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
If we stipulate that 'x is heterological' iff it does not apply to itself, we speedily arrive at the contradiction that 'heterological' is itself heterological just in case it is not.
Gist of Idea
If 'x is heterological' iff it does not apply to itself, then 'heterological' is heterological if it isn't heterological
Source
B Hale / C Wright (Intro to 'The Reason's Proper Study' [2001], 3.2)
Book Ref
Hale,B/Wright,C: 'The Reason's Proper Study' [OUP 2003], p.18
| 10622 | The neo-Fregean is more optimistic than Frege about contextual definitions of numbers [Hale/Wright] |
| 10624 | The incompletability of formal arithmetic reveals that logic also cannot be completely characterized [Hale/Wright] |
| 10626 | Objects just are what singular terms refer to [Hale/Wright] |
| 10630 | Abstracted objects are not mental creations, but depend on equivalence between given entities [Hale/Wright] |
| 10627 | Many conceptual truths ('yellow is extended') are not analytic, as derived from logic and definitions [Hale/Wright] |
| 10631 | If 'x is heterological' iff it does not apply to itself, then 'heterological' is heterological if it isn't heterological [Hale/Wright] |
| 10629 | If structures are relative, this undermines truth-value and objectivity [Hale/Wright] |
| 10628 | The structural view of numbers doesn't fit their usage outside arithmetical contexts [Hale/Wright] |