Vol. 32 No. 1 (2012)
Symposium

The Structural Collapse Approach Reconsidered

Ignacio Ojea
Universidad de Buenos Aires / CONICET

Published 2012-05-01

Keywords

  • Paradox,
  • Circularity,
  • Yablo,
  • Structural collapse
  • Paradoja,
  • Circularidad,
  • Yablo,
  • Colapso estructural

Abstract

I will argue that Roy Cook’s (forthcoming) reformulation of Yablo’s Paradox in the infinitary system D is a genuinely non-circular paradox, but for different reasons than the ones he sustained. In fact, the first part of the job will be to show that his argument regarding the absence of fixed points in the construction is insufficient to prove the noncircularity of it; at much it proves its non-self referentiality. The second is to reconsider the structural collapse approach Cook rejects, and argue that a correct understanding of it leads us to the claim that the infinitary paradox is actually non-circular

References

  1. Barwise, J. and Etchemendy, J. (1987), The Liar: An Essay on Truth and Circularity, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  2. Cook, R. (2004), “Patterns of Paradox”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 69, pp. 767-774.
  3. Cook, R. (2006), “There are non-circular paradoxes (but Yablos’ isn’t one of them)”, The Monist, 89, pp. 118-149.
  4. Cook, R. (forthcoming), The Yablo Paradox: An Essay on Circularity, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  5. Yablo, S. (1982), “Grounding, dependence, and paradox”, Journal of Philoshical Logic, 11, pp. 117–137.
  6. Yablo, S. (1993), “Paradox without self-reference”, Analysis, 53 (4), pp. 251-252.
  7. Yablo, S. (2004), “Circularity and paradox”, in Bolander, H., Hendricks, V. and Pedersen, S. A. (eds.) (2006), Self-Reference, Stanford, CSLI Publications, pp. 165-183.