Adrian Selby

I found myself butting in on the relativism thread below, so thought this ought to have its own thread so as not to hijack. I outline a possible paradox as:

Plato and Socrates are sat together on a bench.

Plato says: "The next statement Socrates makes is a lie, or, if it solely refers to this statement, is meaningless."

Socrates says: "The last statement Plato made was true."

I'm no expert on these paradoxes, not for a moment, though I do find them fascinating. I was intrigued by Primal's comments with regard to the earlier version I posted, which lacked only "or, if it solely...." (Plato)

Primal thinks that these two statements are equivalent to the former with regard to their meaningfulness.

Yet, this isn't what Plato said, Plato said something that was meaningful until Socrates referred only to it. If therefore the above addendum is included, Plato cannot be proven wrong regarding Socrates' next statement, as Primal contends, because he has in fact described Socrates' next statement on Primal's view (that Socrates would say something meaningless), thus Plato is correct to assert this and cannot be wrong, introducing (or sustaining) the paradox.

It's possible that Plato was wrong to contend that Socrates would speak a lie of course.

Anyway, any thoughts are appreciated.

Edited to add: I'm also interested by this sudden thought that the following could occur:

Plato, Socrates and Primal are sat on a bench.

Plato says: "The next statement Socrates makes is a lie, or, if it solely refers to this statement, is meaningless."

Socrates says: "The last statement Plato made was true, and the next statement Primal makes is true."

Primal says: "Socrates' last statement is meaningless."

On this reckoning, as Primal says that statements referring to only to previous statements in this manner are meaningless, it follows that his own statement is meaningless. I'm not sure Primal's statement is meaningless.

Again, apologies if the exposition is somehow flawed (I'm no logician) but hopefully the intent and meaning are clear to my points.

Adrian Selby

How can the statement Socrates makes be meaningless if it is saying that what Plato says is true, when what Plato says, as you agree, is true. If Plato is saying the truth, and Socrates agrees, how can it be meaningless to assert what is in fact true?

Perhaps its just me conflating statements with metastatements

Primal

I don't really distinguish between statements and metastatements. In any event, I am saying both me and plato are right in asserting what Socrates said was meaningless(the fact that Socrates said our statements were true does not count.) And me and Plato would therefore be right at some level.(Sorry for misrepresenting Plato's position before.)

Thus the convo would look like this:

Plato says: "The next statement Socrates makes is a lie, or, if it solely refers to this statement, is meaningless."

Socrates says: "snarfwiggats!"

Primal says: "Socrates' last statement is meaningless."


Inserting the word "true" in reference to me or Plato does not make it any more meaningful as the symbols are simply misplaced.

Adrian Selby

I'm afraid I just don't see how. I can of course understand what you're saying, but try this, I know its shifting the posts, but its not like we're point scoring

Plato says: "The next statement Socrates makes is a lie, or, if it solely refers to this statement, is meaningless."

Socrates says: "The last statement Plato made was true, and the next statement Primal makes is true, unless it refers solely to this statement, in which case, its meaningless."

Primal says: "Socrates' last statement is meaningless."

In this instance, aren't you taking on the role of Socrates. You're saying that his statement is meaningless because it refers solely to Plato's one, yet here you are referring solely to Socrates' statement. If it is true that Socrates' last statement was meaningless, then you're true to say it, as he in fact says. He says 'The next statement Primal makes is true, or meaningless.' If what you're saying is true, that it is meaningless, then it cannot be meaningless if it posits you're saying something true and you are in fact true. Either that or you're saying something meaningless. There appears to me at any rate to be a difference between him saying that what you say is true, and 'Snarfwidgets' when what you are saying is true, if true.

John Page

This is ambiguous. Did Scorates say Plato said "gsdgdsfuhilhui"? Or did Socrates describe what Plato said as gsdgdsfuhilhui? If the first, this would be testable by recalling what Plato had (literally) said. If the second, I would say it is unintelligible rather than meaningless - we need to know what Socrates actually intended by his utterance. IMO, if something is unintelligible then we need to defer judgement on its truth functionality.

Regarding the resolution of any truth claim, please see my suggestions and WJ's responses at this thread Liar Paradox Explanation .

In conclusion, a paradox is an apparent contradiction. All we have to do is explain how it appears. Consistent with relativism, contradictions appear to have different causes depending on your viewpoint.

Cheers, John

John Page

Ade:

You might want to pick another example:

a) The truth of Plato's claim is indeterminate unitl we know what Socrates says.
b) However, in the case that Socrates makes a true statement (i.e. a statement that is considered by you to be true) and Socrates' statement does not refer to Plato's statement, Plato's claim can be considered false by you.

My subjective conclusion: Truth determination requires relevant knowledge and the outcome is relative to the "truth knower".

Cheers, John

John Page

Ade:

I love the way you put this.:notworthy , it seems that we all can be Socrates (maybe even Primal, then he really would be self-contradictory)!

Cheers, John

jpbrooks

Perhaps I missed the definitions of the terms if they were given earlier, but I'm still not sure how a "meaningless statement" differs from an unintelligible utterance. If there is no difference, then could Socrates' unintelligible utterance really be called a statement? If not, then it can't be the statement that is being referred to in Plato's statement.

John Page

You're right, from the observer's point of view you can't (initially, at least) tell. Something unintelligible might be in a foreign language that you don't understand, something meaningless might be a noise that relates to no language.

Cheers, John

long winded fool

It would appear to me, assuming Plato's statement is true, that since Socrates' statement does not refer solely to Plato's statement, Socrates' statement is a lie. Therefore Primal is wrong unless lies are also meaningless. I don't think you can add on to Socrates' statement in this case without disqualifying it from being meaningless and forcing it to be a lie, and if it is a lie, it has no bearing on the truth of Primal's statement.

If Plato's statement is a lie or false, then Socrates' statement is also a lie or false, because he claims Plato's statement is true. If meaninglessness is different than lying, then Primal's statement is either a lie or it is false.