Talk:Socratic paradox

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Philosophy: Logic / Ancient

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Ancient philosophy

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Socratic paradox was copied or moved into I know that I know nothing with this edit on 5 March 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Untitled

I have some concern about the factuality of this page; it seems to me that "this sentence is false" is the paradigm case of the liar paradox; as I am somewhat well read in the liar paradox literature, and have never seen this sentence referred to as an instance of the "Socratic paradox", it seems to me that this article's claim that this is an instance of a socratic paradox is incorrect; what seems most likely is that the socratic paradox IS "I know that I know nothing", which is in turn an instance of a variant of the liar paradox (liar paradox = a:'A is false'; variant: A: 'All things of type B are false', where A is a B. (if memory serves, this would be a 'universal liar; apologies for not bothering with symbolic notation).

I feel this probable error calls the little information in the article into question. However, since I AM NOT somewhat well read in the literature discussing Socrates, I will stay my hand in hopes that a more able (or better motivated) editor will get the job done.

Peace. UnexceptionalException (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]