Paradox
From Geography
DennisPrince (Talk | contribs) |
AnkeJanssen (Talk | contribs) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
when referred to in science this usually means a counter-intuitive outcome of theory. | when referred to in science this usually means a counter-intuitive outcome of theory. | ||
| - | Early research on paradoxes are Canter's theory on cardinal numbers and Russell's contradiction. Where | + | Early research on paradoxes are Canter's theory on cardinal numbers and Russell's contradiction. Where Canter explains that a given value is predictable cannot predict itself. Only previous results can give the answer. |
Russel's paradox, based on class and sets, states that the set of all those sets do not contain themselves. Indicating then when you combine all the sets into a set, this will not suffice as they are not similar. | Russel's paradox, based on class and sets, states that the set of all those sets do not contain themselves. Indicating then when you combine all the sets into a set, this will not suffice as they are not similar. | ||
Later studies which have tried to solve paradoxes such as 'the vicious circle principle' have led to alternative approaches by Russel such as the zig-zag theory. | Later studies which have tried to solve paradoxes such as 'the vicious circle principle' have led to alternative approaches by Russel such as the zig-zag theory. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
''one must not think ill of the paradox, for the paradox is the passion of thought, and the thinker without the paradox is like the lover without passion: a mediocre fellow. But the ultimate potentiation of every passion is always to will its own downfall, and so it is also the ultimate passion of the understanding to will the collision, although in one way or another the collision must become its downfall. This, then, is the ultimate paradox of thought: to want to discover something that thought itself cannot think. '' | ''one must not think ill of the paradox, for the paradox is the passion of thought, and the thinker without the paradox is like the lover without passion: a mediocre fellow. But the ultimate potentiation of every passion is always to will its own downfall, and so it is also the ultimate passion of the understanding to will the collision, although in one way or another the collision must become its downfall. This, then, is the ultimate paradox of thought: to want to discover something that thought itself cannot think. '' | ||
| + | Luhmann has used paradoxes on several occasions as well. His view on paradox has some similarities with [[Søren Kierkegaard]] in a way that they both view paradox as a limitation of communication. In his work he uses two paradoxes very clearly; the fact that no observer can fully observe itself and silence. With regard to the double contingent, silence will always be interpreted by the other. Making silence a form of communication. (Arnoldi on Luhmann, 2001, p.8) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Example=== | ||
| + | An example of a paradox is the following sentence: 'what this says is not true!'. If that wat is written here is not true, then the phrase 'what this says is not true' is false too. This can therefore only mean that what it says here is true. But if that is so, then is the sentence 'what this says is not true' not true. This allows us to reason through infinitely. So, this is an example of an paradox: both the affirmation and the negation leads to a contradiction (Studielink, 2012). | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | Arnoldi, J. (2001) ''Theory culture & society'' p.8. | ||
| - | |||
Kierkegaard, S. (1844) ''Philosophical fragments'' p. 37. | Kierkegaard, S. (1844) ''Philosophical fragments'' p. 37. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Studielink. (2012). ''Wat hier staat is niet waar!'' Retrieved 2012 Octobre 23 from http://www.kennislink.nl/publicaties/wat-hier-staat-is-niet-waar | ||
Unknown. Retrieved 2012 September 18 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox | Unknown. Retrieved 2012 September 18 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox | ||
| Line 18: | Line 26: | ||
Unknown. Retrieved 2012 September 18 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradoxes-contemporary-logic/ | Unknown. Retrieved 2012 September 18 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradoxes-contemporary-logic/ | ||
| - | + | ||
| + | ==Contributors== | ||
* ''page created by''--[[User:DennisPrince|DennisPrince]] 12:25, 18 September 2012 (CEST) | * ''page created by''--[[User:DennisPrince|DennisPrince]] 12:25, 18 September 2012 (CEST) | ||
| + | * ''page enhanced by''--[[User:DennisPrince|DennisPrince]] 13:13, 19 September 2012 (CEST) | ||
| + | * Page edited by Anke Janssen, on 23 Octobre | ||
Latest revision as of 12:48, 23 October 2012
A paradox is usually a statement that goes against common opinion, defies logic or reason. when referred to in science this usually means a counter-intuitive outcome of theory.
Early research on paradoxes are Canter's theory on cardinal numbers and Russell's contradiction. Where Canter explains that a given value is predictable cannot predict itself. Only previous results can give the answer. Russel's paradox, based on class and sets, states that the set of all those sets do not contain themselves. Indicating then when you combine all the sets into a set, this will not suffice as they are not similar. Later studies which have tried to solve paradoxes such as 'the vicious circle principle' have led to alternative approaches by Russel such as the zig-zag theory.
Paradoxes are usually a play of words that indicate the limitations of use of communication. Such as if the universe is not infinitely old, how can it be infinitaly? Paradoxes are used by several philosophers such as Søren Kierkegaard who wrote ; one must not think ill of the paradox, for the paradox is the passion of thought, and the thinker without the paradox is like the lover without passion: a mediocre fellow. But the ultimate potentiation of every passion is always to will its own downfall, and so it is also the ultimate passion of the understanding to will the collision, although in one way or another the collision must become its downfall. This, then, is the ultimate paradox of thought: to want to discover something that thought itself cannot think.
Luhmann has used paradoxes on several occasions as well. His view on paradox has some similarities with Søren Kierkegaard in a way that they both view paradox as a limitation of communication. In his work he uses two paradoxes very clearly; the fact that no observer can fully observe itself and silence. With regard to the double contingent, silence will always be interpreted by the other. Making silence a form of communication. (Arnoldi on Luhmann, 2001, p.8)
Example
An example of a paradox is the following sentence: 'what this says is not true!'. If that wat is written here is not true, then the phrase 'what this says is not true' is false too. This can therefore only mean that what it says here is true. But if that is so, then is the sentence 'what this says is not true' not true. This allows us to reason through infinitely. So, this is an example of an paradox: both the affirmation and the negation leads to a contradiction (Studielink, 2012).
References
Arnoldi, J. (2001) Theory culture & society p.8.
Kierkegaard, S. (1844) Philosophical fragments p. 37.
Studielink. (2012). Wat hier staat is niet waar! Retrieved 2012 Octobre 23 from http://www.kennislink.nl/publicaties/wat-hier-staat-is-niet-waar
Unknown. Retrieved 2012 September 18 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
Unknown. Retrieved 2012 September 18 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradoxes-contemporary-logic/
Contributors
- page created by--DennisPrince 12:25, 18 September 2012 (CEST)
- page enhanced by--DennisPrince 13:13, 19 September 2012 (CEST)
- Page edited by Anke Janssen, on 23 Octobre
