Talk:Liar paradox

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by .

Literature

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Please feel free to add entries and comments (discussions elsewhere on this talkpage, please) to this list.

Beall, J. C., ed. (13 December 2007). Revenge of the liar: new essays on the paradox. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199233908. Retrieved 18 March 2010.

Review: Horsten, Leon (17 May 2009). "Revenge of the Liar: New Essays on the Paradox - Reviewed by Leon Horsten, University of Bristol/University of Leuven". Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Notre Dame, Indiana 46556: Philosophy Department, University of Notre Dame. ISSN 1538-1617. Archived from the original on 18 March 2010. Retrieved 18 March 2010.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Liar paradox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110816043742/http://files.davidsanson.com/research/ArabicLiar.pdf to http://files.davidsanson.com/research/ArabicLiar.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Non-cognitivist"?

Irvine's proposed solution to the paradox is listed as a "non-cognitivist" solution. It's not clear why, though. I presume it is in reference to the cognitivist theory of ethics, but I'm not sure such a reference is appropriate. Maybe "non-truth-conditional" would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrilway (talk • contribs) 15:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourceless Arthur Prior

In the section on Arthur Prior, there are no sources? I've taken a look round the internet but every mention of him seems to just link back to this article, and I can't find anything about him and the liar paradox outside of it. Also no sources for Charles Sanders Pierce and John Buridan, which seem equally recursive in my brief search on them. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the closest thing I've been able to find is this extract by Roy A. Sorensen in the Oxford Handbook of Truth

"The medieval logician Jean Buridan’s solution was to challenge this synonymy. His differentiator is the narcissistic principle that every statement implies its own truth- a principle that continues to attract adherents such as Eugene Mills (1998)."

then later

"According to Buridan, proposition P implicitly ascribes truth to itself" 192.76.8.81 (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Added a source for Prior. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liar paradox and Epimenides paradox

If separate articles "Liar paradox" and "Epimenides paradox" are neeced they should have pointers to each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:159:FD1:1C7C:5535:AF23:D550 (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]