Well, that was my first thought, but to get the paradox we need blog-conversational implicature (blimplicature?) such that "April Fool!" refers to the title of the post. So maybe we could interpret it instead as simply making the title trivially true, at the expense not of paradox but instead of vacuity.
BTW I'm still thinking about that exchange at Daniel's (re: "blork" etc). Not surprisingly I am mostly in agreement with him, but you are right that there is a lot in the background here. I have a bunch of notes on it, and I might put some of that stuff up even if it doesn't amount to a well-formed post on its own. (Maybe.)
The "blork" stuff put me in mind of Anscombe's remarks about logical form at the end of Intention, and Thompson/Merleau-Ponty line about animals, though not so much that I concluded I had anything to say about it. But I'd like to read your stuff!
5 comments:
I think you've just found a new version of the Liar paradox.
Well, that was my first thought, but to get the paradox we need blog-conversational implicature (blimplicature?) such that "April Fool!" refers to the title of the post. So maybe we could interpret it instead as simply making the title trivially true, at the expense not of paradox but instead of vacuity.
BTW I'm still thinking about that exchange at Daniel's (re: "blork" etc). Not surprisingly I am mostly in agreement with him, but you are right that there is a lot in the background here. I have a bunch of notes on it, and I might put some of that stuff up even if it doesn't amount to a well-formed post on its own. (Maybe.)
Well-formed or not, I would be interested in your thoughts. I miss the good ol' days whey we got a DuckRabbit post at least quarterly.
Ah, the good old days! [wipes tear away]
The "blork" stuff put me in mind of Anscombe's remarks about logical form at the end of Intention, and Thompson/Merleau-Ponty line about animals, though not so much that I concluded I had anything to say about it. But I'd like to read your stuff!
Post a Comment