[FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Paradoxes are anything *but* nonsense. My favorite author even credits it and the "crazy" things akin to it as: "Their [the crazy philosophies'] most important advantage over the sensible philosophies is that they come far closer to the truth!" [†]

As for "the theory", Tarski had quite a bit to say about reasoning from paradox. Frank's invocation of meta-math tells a more hygienic story. But my guess is you'd be more comfortable with Tarski. If you haven't read it, you might consider section 6 (the Summary) of Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages: http://www.irafs.org/materials/wld19/tarski_concept_truth_formalized_languages.pdf  Barwise & Moss have a fantastic book on the subject, Vicious Circles. But it may also be too mathy.

They are decidedly "Western". 8^) If you want something spiced with a tiny bit of Eastern, we have the tried and true Gödel, Escher, Bach, by Hofstadter.


[†] The Tao is Silent, Raymond Smullyan.

On 3/15/20 9:39 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> Now you might (others have) insisted that while the statement is a logical paradox (I would call paradoxes non-sense), the contemplation of paradoxes might lead me to knowledge.  I worry this might even be one of the methods you prescribe when you speak of a deep dive.  If so, I guess I have a right to ask (at least in Western Practice) what is the theory that tells you that these methods will lead to truth or wisdom, etc. 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ