The Kohlios Paradox

That's not a paradox. If the first person's beliefs are factually wrong (wherein anyone who is factually right understands the truth...) then his delusions aren't a statement of truth regardless of whether he or she knows that is erroneous beliefs are false.

I'm fathoming a guess that this Holio... Coolio... um... Kohlios person isn't a known commodity and that you're spreading this Kohlio Paradox into the universal lexicon as you're trying to give birth to a new philosophy term.

The pragmatist would argue along the lines that "truth" is ultimately a matter of "mutual agreement about what works". The so-called paradox is a trivial word game for those who confuse "logic" with "contextual semantics".

Fresco...or anyone else with a closed mind...certainly would. Anyone with an open mind would reject this cult dogma...and acknowledge that it is possible "truth" and "REALITY" may be totally independent of anything humans can understand about them.

I can't even make sense of this as a sentence. "The same" what? Whose "his?"

Do you realize what a fool you look, childishly pursuing me across threads ? Why not attempt to answer the question posed? Why not refer, for example, to Frege's attempted solution to Russell's paradox, which ostensibly has some bearing on this question ? Go on...lets see if you've got a brain !

Don't flatter yourself. I came to this thread because of its title...and could make very little sense of the OP.

The first thing I saw worth a comment was your post...and I responded. I am not stalking you...and if I look childish in your view, it has more to do with your vision than my being.



Oh, I have a brain. And I will use it the way I choose...rather than have you decide for me how to use it.

Tsarstepan...in my response to Fresco, I said his was the first worthy of comment.

Yours was also.

I question whether there is a Kohlios Paradox except in the mind of someone named Kohlios...and if the best Kohlios could do in setting the "paradox" out was what was offered above, it probably doesn't deserve much attention.

I hope this poster cleans the OP up...it might provide some interesting conversation.

this what prove that truth is not what u always think it is but wat i think it is

for u, truth is smthg to seek or believe, bc u essentially mean being by possessin smthg or getting to b

for me, truth is objective always and never oneself conscious

then whatever u think being has no relation at all with truth, truth is never through what u mean or think, truth is exclusively objective so absolutely real

oneself is to freedom and freedom as abstraction of existence is eternal existence then freedom could mean true objective realisations or freedom could enjoy existin as a liar always

let me explain more objectively what is truth accordin to me

truth concept can b graspd from the idea that says, if u put everything infront of u all what exist and is there includin u and urself and ur wills and means, then we can witness smthg positive happening, and this is the reason of linearity that include zero all ways, as constant all objective for positive which positive as true positive would b more then other positive before

what is more me meaning the truth, i understand the value of truth being superior to its positive results ends
and how bc truth value is absolute superiority then it is logical that anything else of all what can b there, cant b but positive since necessarily from abstract superiority as it is not confusin its fact with what possibly could b objectively present or relatively existing

individually ur ways of thinkin and being is logical, since by definition noone is ever the truth so freedom is never true, so it is logical that individuals mean their own positive ways so their personnal lives ends results

but truth is still too smthg else, so wether u mean it or not u care or not it doesnt matter to at all, truth is the exclusive fact reason of any objective existence or reality

What joefromchicago said.

Yes. He has a point. But I think we can assume that this has been stated as some garbled version of nested (or second order) logic involving "the truth of assumed truth".

Garbled. Key word there.

Language, as you have shown, Joe, is not your long suit. That you've got Lustig "I've never given a moment's thought to the workings of language" Andrei on your side cinches it.

As soon as Merry agreed with you, you should have immediately reconsidered;

"Perhaps I was a wee bit hasty".

Let me help you with how antecedents and referents work in English grammar.

"If one believes something to be ultimately true, and another [a clear indication of a second person] deems his [the one, the first person mentioned, underlined] error as delusion, then [the result could be that] the same can be said for his [the second person] own delusional truth."

Why are you hanging around this thread? You have a question to answer over here.

I think it's a version of the Liar's Paradox -- except that it's not paradoxical. It's just a mess.

I see that the schoolin' you got took, Joe. That's good.

Now could you please help Merry along? He's cute, but he's awfully thick.

Why are you hanging around this thread? You have a question to answer over here.

I'll get to that, Joe. Just because you ask a question doesn't mean that you get a free pass when it comes to dispensing spurious language notions.

Notice how, in this thread, you show that same propensity to avoid discussing the language issue that YOU raised.

.
Agreed .

There is perhaps a Gestalt explanation of such "paradoxes" where the "can't be both" is analogous to active perceptual oscillation, involving restructuring of mutually exclusive ambiguous figures (e.g Candlestick-Faces). The point is that paradoxes are presented as atemporal, but cognition/perception is always dynamic,involving state transitions.

Why are you hanging around this thread? You have a question to answer over here.