On Balzer's small set solution to Russell's Paradox

Journal of Value Inquiry 27 (3-4):541-541 (1993)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to show that Russell's paradox cannot be solved just by defining a class as what is classified, as Balzer thinks. It can be solved not by defining a class, as he does, but by rejecting the assumption on which the validity of argument is based, that is, not conceding the truth of the disjunctive premise that a class is either an instance of itself or not an instance of itself

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,551

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Russell's paradox.Kevin C. Klement - 2001 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Balzer's solution to Russell's Paradox.Jagat Pal - 1993 - Journal of Value Inquiry 27 (3-4):539-540.
The ontological argument and Russell's antinomy.Sara L. Uckelman - 2009 - Logic and Logical Philosophy 18 (3-4):309-312.
Lesniewski's Analysis of Russell's Antinomy.Vito F. Sinisi - 1976 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 17 (1):19-34.
Curry's Paradox.Lionel Shapiro & Jc Beall - 2017 - Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. CSLI Publications.
Immanence and Validity.W. V. Quine - 1991 - Dialectica 45 (2‐3):219-230.
Russell-Myhill paradox.Kevin C. Klement - 2003 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
An Exploration of Reflexivity.Harry Fan Lee - 1990 - Dissertation, Boston University

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-01-22

Downloads
46 (#482,869)

6 months
12 (#302,973)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The paradoxes.Noel Balzer - 1992 - Journal of Value Inquiry 26 (2):189-197.

Add more references