[FOM] Unrestricted Quantification and Paradox

laureano luna laureanoluna at yahoo.es
Tue Jun 5 05:03:15 EDT 2007

Bob Clark wrote:

>> In my opinion, the moral of the whole story is
>that we
>> cannot refer by means of an act to the very act we
>>accomplishing or to the results of it. 

>That's a bit quick. Suppose I say (out loud), 'What
>I'm saying is 
>inaudible to laureano luna.' (I just did say that.
>Luckily there's 
>no-one else around.)

As obvious a counterexample that might seem, I'm not
sure it is.


(1) what I'm saying is inaudible to laureano luna


(2) what I'm saying is true

No logical problem arises in (1) while circularity in
(2) suggests ungroundedness. This difference suggests
in turn that not the same kind of self-reference has
been accomplished in both cases.

While asserting (1) I'm not simply carrying out a
physical activity such as proferring sounds, in
addition I perform an intellectual act of assertion.
By means of the intellectual act I make reference to
the physical act and its result (the sounds), but it
is never the intellectual act referring to itself. Of
course, the mere physical act refers to nothing (we
wouldn't say that a parrot proferring (1) refers to

On the contrary, (2) attempts at a reference from the
act of asserting to the result of that act.

I'd say this is ultimately the same difference that
can be found between:

(1) this sentence has five words


(2) this sentence is true

Best regards

LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. 
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. 

More information about the FOM mailing list