In the ancient world, Cretans were legendary & famous liars.
In the modern world:
A writer decided to write a book about modern day Crete. He decided
the best way to do this would be to go there and talk to as many Cretans as
he could to better lean all about them, starting with the first one he met.
Getting off the boat, he was met by a porter offering to carry his
bags. Ah! My first Cretan! thought the the writer--now I can begin with my
book.
He told the Cretan about his project and how he intended to speak with
as many Cretans as possible beginning with him, the porter.
That's wonderful! said the Cretan. And I am very glad you are
talking with me first, because I must warn you--all Cretans are liars.
Later, the writer began to reflect on what the man had told him. If
he were telling the truth--and all Cretans were liars--and he was a
Cretan--therefore he must be lying. But if he was lying that they were all
liars, they must all be ones who told the truth. But then--if they told the
truth--meaning he did--then--then they would all be liars and---
The writer could see that this was going to be a difficult book to
write . . .
From: "Allan Revich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: FLUXLIST@scribble.com
To: <FLUXLIST@scribble.com>
Subject: RE: FLUXLIST: Nothing maxim/Superstions maxim
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 11:57:50 -0400
That's really something!
Russell's Paradox
"Russell's paradox represents either of two interrelated logical
antinomies.
The most commonly discussed form is a contradiction arising in the logic of
sets or classes. Some classes (or sets) seem to be members of themselves,
while some do not. The class of all classes is itself a class, and so it
seems to be in itself. The null or empty class, however, must not be a
member of itself. However, suppose that we can form a class of all classes
(or sets) that, like the null class, are not included in themselves. The
paradox arises from asking the question of whether this class is in itself.
It is if and only if it is not. The other form is a contradiction involving
properties. Some properties seem to apply to themselves, while others do
not. The property of being a property is itself a property, while the
propery of being a cat is not itself a cat. Consider the property that
something has just in case it is a property (like that of being a cat) that
does not apply to itself. Does this property apply to itself? Once again,
from either assumption, the opposite follows. The paradox was named after
Bertrand Russell, who discovered it in 1901."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-russ.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David-Baptiste Chirot
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 10:37 AM
To: FLUXLIST@scribble.com
Subject: RE: FLUXLIST: Nothing maxim/Superstions maxim
Well--i guess that means they believe in SOMEthing! (i.e nothing--)
During spring training, a rookie baseball player was being interviewed by
the Milwaukee paper---and asked if he had any pet superstitions--as
baseball
players are notorious for having many--
He replied--"I don't believe in that stuff. It's bad luck."
Now--that's a form of nihilism, don't you think!
>From: "Allan Revich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: FLUXLIST@scribble.com
>To: <FLUXLIST@scribble.com>
>Subject: FLUXLIST: Nothing maxim
>Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 10:00:14 -0400
>
>Nihilists believe in nothing
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
