Results found: 2

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: Liar paradox

Sort By:

Limit search:

The ‘Verdict Paradox’ and the Liar Paradox: How Logic Can Defend the Rule of Law. A Study of the Polish Constitutional Crisis

100%

Mazurkiewicz S.

Avant

2019

vol. 10

issue 1

173-187

This paper aims to present how logic may undermine a parliamentary assault on democratic institutions (representing legal guarantees of the rule of law and political freedom) based on the analysis conducted with reference to the so-called Polish constitutional crisis. I analyse whether a law can be reviewed on the basis of this law itself. The Polish Constitutional Tribunal faced such a problem while passing the verdict of 9th March, 2016, regarding the constitutionality of the amendment to the Statute on the Constitutional Tribunal from 22nd December, 2015. This problem, called a ‘verdict paradox’, was claimed to be a type of the Liar paradox. I argue that, contrary to the common view, the problem of the verdict paradox is not based on the Liar paradox; for this purpose, a logical analysis is applied to four variants of a reasoning with regard to the constitutionality of the said amendment. The distinction between two levels of analysis concerning emerging reasonings, namely an abstract (logical) level and a concrete level placed in the context of the legal system, is also introduced. This paper demonstrates that although only two variants of the reasoning concerning a law’s judicial review based on the law itself involve logical contradiction, the possibility of employing reasonings from other variants must be excluded, albeit due to alternative reasons. Therefore, the Constitutional Tribunal’s decision to avoid the verdict paradox by passing over the reviewed provisions in the review process was correct and might be perceived as an example of how logic and reason can defend the institutional guarantees of political freedom.

Antynomia kłamcy a teoria hiperzbiorów

80%

Jaworski K.

Studia Paradyskie

2017

issue 27

187-206

Celem artykułu jest prezentacja jednego z filozoficznych zastosowań teorii hiperzbiorów ZFA. Autorami tego pomysłu są Barwise i Etchemendy, którzy proponują nowe rozwiązanie antynomii kłamcy. Artykuł przedstawia tzw. koncepcję sądu (i prawdziwości) w ujęciu Russella. Zgodnie z tą koncepcją sąd Kłamcy posiada teoriomnogościową reprezentację w postaci obiektu . Zapis ten należy odczytywać: „sąd to sąd, który głosi, że jest fałszywy”. Kluczem do omawianego rozwiązania jest zdefiniowanie dwóch typów paradoksalności: paradoksalności względnej i paradoksalności bezwzględnej. Sąd jest paradoksalny bezwzględnie, jeżeli jest paradoksalny w każdym świecie, natomiast jest paradoksalny względnie, jeżeli jest paradoksalny w pewnych światach, ale nie we wszystkich.

The objective of the paper is to discuss one of the philosophical applications of the hyperset theory ZFA. The idea is due to Barwise and Etchemendy, who proposed a new solution to the Liar paradox. The solution involves Russellian account of proposition (and truth). According to Russellian account, Liar proposition may be represented in set theory as: , to be read: „proposition is a proposition stating that is false”. The solution is based on the distinction between two kinds of paradoxicality: contingent paradoxicality and intrinsical paradoxicality. A proposition is intrinsically paradoxical, if it is paradoxical in every world, and is contingently paradoxical if it is paradoxical in some worlds but not in others.

Refine search results

1 Avant

1 Studia Paradyskie

1 Jaworski K.

1 Mazurkiewicz S.

1 2019

1 2017

Search results

The ‘Verdict Paradox’ and the Liar Paradox: How Logic Can Defend the Rule of Law. A Study of the Polish Constitutional Crisis

Antynomia kłamcy a teoria hiperzbiorów