“千古之谜”的“低调”和“高调”消解——含假句的论证不能成立

“Thousand years riddle”should be resolved from“low-standard”and “high-standard”——Arguments containing falsehood cannot hold

我们有关“千古之谜”的一些论点及其论证,仍然被一些论者误解,所以,我们有必要加以重申和发展。古哲早已发现,“自(我指)涉”可产生假句(或矛盾句),这就消解了“初始谎者”悖论(P)。沿着这思路,不难进而指出,“强化谎者”悖论“这语句假”(Q),要么缺值,要么是假。逻辑派自己向来肯定：含假句的论证不能成立(这应该包括由“自涉”产生的假句 P、Q),那么,要用含 P、Q 的论证来证明“矛盾句为真”和“判决日常(自然)语言准死刑”也不能成立。这意味着(从逻辑派的低调标准看),“强化谎者”悖论 Q 已遭消解。再者,“仅是矛盾”大别于“矛盾被证”。从辩证“鹰”派的观点,同时也是逻辑派高调标准的“开明”观点看,“矛盾被证”问题仍然存在! 只有我们指出 Q 犯“复合命题”或“矛盾定义”谬误,“千古之谜”才真正(更彻底地)遭消解!以上的分析可同样适用于“这语句不真”(R)的“超二值谎者”悖论。

It seems some researchers have not paid sufficient attention to come ＂important points＂ of our resolution about ＂the thousand years riddle＂. There -fore we should ＂reiterate＂ and ＂develope＂ old and new theories as the following： Ancient philosophers discovered that ＂self- reference＂ may generate falsehood （or contradiction） and resolved ＂primitive liar＂ paradox （P）. Along with this thought, it is not hard to advance ＂the strengthened liar＂ paradox： this sentence is false （Q） is either value -lacking or false; thus, arguments containing P,Q as premises （ for instance, to prove a contradiction, or to put daily （natural） - language to ＂death＂ ） can not hold ! （ It should include ＂self- reference＂ sentence P,Q） The logicians should respond to this challenge ; but at the same time this is a ＂low- standard＂ for resolving paradox Q. Moreover, ＂a mere contradiction＂ differs greatly from ＂a contradiction proved＂ ; from both the view - point of ＂eagle＂ dialecticians, and the ＂high - standard＂ view - point of logicians, the problem： ＂a contradiction proved＂ still exists. It is only when we point out that Q commits the ＂complex proposition＂ fallacy or ＂contradiction definition＂ fallacy, can＂the thousand years riddle＂ be （thoroughly） resolved ! The above analysis may also applicable to ＂super di - value liar＂ paradox ： this sentence is not true. （R）