본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

역설 의미론의 기초

The First Step to Semantics of Paradox

0

조회

0

다운로드

6

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류언어학

초록

Semantics of paradox is a theory on the meaning of paradoxical expressions like “That is a nonsense!”, “It is absurd!”. As a working definition, ‘paradox’ is defined as a specific type of situation which causes people to respond to it with such utterances like above. The semantics of paradox will not look like a semantics of words, phrases, sentences, or compound sentences. It has to do with the aspects of situations which are of a higher level category than that of things, states, events, or simple conjunction of events. To construct a theory of paradox, it is essential to find specific patterns in the situations which bring about the socalled paradoxical responses. These patterns which constitute the situations are the core that has paradoxical efficacy. The patterns I present are: Infinity, Totality, Self-reflexivity, Duplexity (manifested through Confusion through Representation or Taking-as), and the singular domain ― the First Person-Singular-Present. I discuss these patterns independently or in association with the philosophers’ treatments of their paradoxes. The ‘vagueness’ found in the talk on Sorites Paradox is repudiated. The philosophers felt it paradox not because it was vague but because they have seen the Law of Mathematical Induction violated. And the self-reflexivity found in the Liar’s Paradox is not the genuine cause of the paradox, but rather it is the confusion between the object language and the meta language. Why do paradoxes occur? Is it because the world goes like that? Is it because we see, think and act in a specific way? I think the both are to be taken into consideration, and always at the same time. Why do we respond in such a way to the paradoxes? Well, first because of the feeling of total helplessness, or uncontrollability we feel when the world is vast and have infinity which our finite reason cannot measure or cope with. And when we see things broken or violated, the things that we keep preserving and want to preserve, and that preserve us: the laws or the principles, the dearest things, the norms, the conscious or unconscious practices, or habits. When they are broken or violated it is hard for us to tolerate the situation. So the paradoxes teach us what they are that we preserve and keep. They inform us how we conduct our behaviors, how we choose, and how we react. They raise us our understanding, knowledge, emotion or perception to higher levels when we have understood what paradoxes are and how paradoxes work upon us.

Abstract

Semantics of paradox is a theory on the meaning of paradoxical expressions like “That is a nonsense!”, “It is absurd!”. As a working definition, ‘paradox’ is defined as a specific type of situation which causes people to respond to it with such utterances like above. The semantics of paradox will not look like a semantics of words, phrases, sentences, or compound sentences. It has to do with the aspects of situations which are of a higher level category than that of things, states, events, or simple conjunction of events. To construct a theory of paradox, it is essential to find specific patterns in the situations which bring about the socalled paradoxical responses. These patterns which constitute the situations are the core that has paradoxical efficacy. The patterns I present are: Infinity, Totality, Self-reflexivity, Duplexity (manifested through Confusion through Representation or Taking-as), and the singular domain ― the First Person-Singular-Present. I discuss these patterns independently or in association with the philosophers’ treatments of their paradoxes. The ‘vagueness’ found in the talk on Sorites Paradox is repudiated. The philosophers felt it paradox not because it was vague but because they have seen the Law of Mathematical Induction violated. And the self-reflexivity found in the Liar’s Paradox is not the genuine cause of the paradox, but rather it is the confusion between the object language and the meta language. Why do paradoxes occur? Is it because the world goes like that? Is it because we see, think and act in a specific way? I think the both are to be taken into consideration, and always at the same time. Why do we respond in such a way to the paradoxes? Well, first because of the feeling of total helplessness, or uncontrollability we feel when the world is vast and have infinity which our finite reason cannot measure or cope with. And when we see things broken or violated, the things that we keep preserving and want to preserve, and that preserve us: the laws or the principles, the dearest things, the norms, the conscious or unconscious practices, or habits. When they are broken or violated it is hard for us to tolerate the situation. So the paradoxes teach us what they are that we preserve and keep. They inform us how we conduct our behaviors, how we choose, and how we react. They raise us our understanding, knowledge, emotion or perception to higher levels when we have understood what paradoxes are and how paradoxes work upon us.

참고문헌 (16)

  1. 이향천, "양상의 언어 철학적 고찰", 언어학, (56), pp.119~157 (2010), 사단법인 한국언어학회
  2. 이향천, "서술과 구성", 언어학, (62), pp.121~146 (2012), 사단법인 한국언어학회[DOI]
  3. Bateson, G., "Steps To An Ecology Of Mind" (2000), University of Chicago Press
  4. Bateson, G., "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity" (1979), Hampton Press
  5. Fasolt, C., "John Calvin, Myth and Reality: Images and Impact of Geneva’s Reformer", pp.165~194 (2011), Cascade Books of Wipf & Stock
  6. Green, M. S., "Moore’s Paradox: New Essays on Belief, Rationality, and the First Person" (2007), Oxford University Press
  7. Keefe, R., "Theories of Vagueness" (2000), Cambridge University Press
  8. Korzybski A., "Science and Sanity", pp.747~761 (1933)
  9. Moore, G. E., "G. E. Moore: Selected Writings", pp.207~212 (1993), Routledge
  10. Penrose, R., "Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe" (2010), The Bodly Head
  11. Schank, R. C., "Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding" (1977), Earlbaum Assoc
  12. Tarski, A., "Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen", Studia Philosophica, 1, pp.261~405 (1936)
  13. Veltman, F., "Defaults in Update Semantics", Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25(3), pp.221~261 (1996)
  14. Whitehead, A. N., "Principia Mathematica" (1963), Cambridge University Press

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)