I read the article and I'm disappointed by how abstruse the whole thing is. I don't mean that paradoxes are difficult to contend with, more that the authors seem to do their best to muddy the waters of what's being discussed in the first place. After the first few paragraphs they seem to be engaging in an exercise that's all together different from explaining the topic. I'm of the opinion that a convoluted explanation is worth less than a straight forward one.
Lets talk about category theory, lets talk about nested statements. Hell, I'm game to play games. But to obscure what you mean in an exposition that amounts to plate of spilled spaghetti is just a pet peeve of mine.
LordLalo t1_ird00tb wrote
Reply to "For evoking impossible entities, paradox has too easily been dismissed as philosophically suspect. Yet, far from entailing error, paradox suggests a “certaine valeur de vérité,” a particular type of truth inherent to language." by Maxwellsdemon17
I read the article and I'm disappointed by how abstruse the whole thing is. I don't mean that paradoxes are difficult to contend with, more that the authors seem to do their best to muddy the waters of what's being discussed in the first place. After the first few paragraphs they seem to be engaging in an exercise that's all together different from explaining the topic. I'm of the opinion that a convoluted explanation is worth less than a straight forward one.
Lets talk about category theory, lets talk about nested statements. Hell, I'm game to play games. But to obscure what you mean in an exposition that amounts to plate of spilled spaghetti is just a pet peeve of mine.