Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

And that (the Humpty Dumpty reading, wherein the meaning and intent of words is subordinated to the reader's desire) is an assumption of the sort one has to make in order to "prove" that it is fundamentally impossible for a statement to be self-contradictory. Such statements are always introduced in intellectual discourse as self-referential; that is, the words "this", "I" and "me" are identities of the statement by definition. There is no ambiguity of the sort that one might find in Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas une pipe", where one may chose to infer "ceci" to refer to any of the depiction of the pipe, the painting as a whole, or just the written statement (none of which is a pipe as such).

Think of it this way:

If a stranger were to approach you on the street, say, "I am a liar," then walk away, you'd likely think that the fellow is a little depressed and perhaps a bit remorseful about a habit of lying whenever it suited him. If the same fellow, in the same circumstances, had instead said "I am lying to you right now" before wandering off, you're left with two choices -- seriously psychotic or smartass.

People are reluctant to think of systems such as language and mathematics as seriously psychotic, so a cottage industry has sprung up trying to prove that these systems are merely smartasses out to infect our internal source code repositories with Brainfuck or some other Turing tarpit. It doesn't matter how many times one invokes the demons of deconstructionism, these paradoxes are and will remain very real.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: