[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

but only by language and labels that we have imposed, not by any intrinsic meaning. What, after all, is a sentence?

Ow hoh! You have made the question that enters the discussion in the terrible world which is the philosophy of language. Too complex, too boaring, too technical is this philosophy. Philosophers of language started to differentiate and ended up with a long list of terms: symbol, sing, signal, significant... Too many, too mathematical for philosophy.

But I agree. The meaning of a word, the dictionary meaning, is not defined by the word or by the object it refers to, or by the mind that contains it. For example, my name, Guille, doesn't have it's meaning, doesn't contain it, and what it refers to, which is me, is not in itself either, and what it means in my mind, or in yours, isn't in it... It seems nothing really determines the meaning of a word or a sentence.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>>

Really? If the TOE exists, and I belief it exists, and I belief you belief also that it exists, then it should show itself directly, we wouldn't have to make any effort. Such a world would be so easy-going... Bad luck I guess, we have to live in this one.

well I'm not saying you can see the theory of everything. You can look around you and figure it out, based on everything you and the rest of your species knows. Once you know it's description, it fits it's own description. And about a sentence just being a sentence, that is true, and that is my point. Everything contains itself. You contain yourself, I contain myself, etc. But whether nothing contains itself or not is not an applicable question because nothing has no value whatsoever. In other words, nothing doesn't necessarely serve as it's own description because nothing has no description. Realizing this allows you to solve the paradox. IMHO

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>>

Ow hoh! You have made the question that enters the discussion in the terrible world which is the philosophy of language. Too complex, too boaring, too technical is this philosophy. Philosophers of language started to differentiate and ended up with a long list of terms: symbol, sing, signal, significant... Too many, too mathematical for philosophy.

But I agree. The meaning of a word, the dictionary meaning, is not defined by the word or by the object it refers to, or by the mind that contains it. For example, my name, Guille, doesn't have it's meaning, doesn't contain it, and what it refers to, which is me, is not in itself either, and what it means in my mind, or in yours, isn't in it... It seems nothing really determines the meaning of a word or a sentence.

You're right, the word Guille doesn't contain you. But the word Guille still contains itself, the word Guille. And the meaning of the word Guille is also self contained. And you are also self contained, because you contain yourself. So everything contains itself. This is self-evident. In fact, I will now call this self-evidence, the fact that something contains itself.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion

You're right, the word Guille doesn't contain you. But the word Guille still contains itself, the word Guille. And the meaning of the word Guille is also self contained. And you are also self contained, because you contain yourself. So everything contains itself. This is self-evident. In fact, I will now call this self-evidence, the fact that something contains itself.

I already discussed with you this in your thread. I agree, but the logical relationship of contention is not the same as this metaphysical relationship of contention, on refers to an external relationship and the other is internal, one is what it has, the other is what it is. Simply it ain't the way to solve the paradox. It does fight those, thought, that belief russell's paradox is true for what a set is aswell as what it contains.

[subversion]

I think it is the same thing though. By something being itself it contains itself and thus it IS it's own member, the zeroth member.

[harmonygirl]

sub,
you've hit the nail on the head--being yourself does not contain yourself.

[subversion]

hmmm, so if you don't contain yourself, who does?

[harmonygirl]

maybe nothing is contained. maybe that is part of TOE, the division that we experience is artificial.

[Guille]

I agree with Harmonygirl.

There is no neccesary reason why something should be contained, in fact contention was something we invented to refer to our observations: that people are contained in a society, that electrons are contained in a circuit... But contention about itself is not neccesary, only some sets do. But I think that a world were nothing is grouped, is not a world for a world is simply a group of all things. Therefore, we need to group things up together in order to understand, explain and rpedict the universe, this is what all our methods are based (scientific or not): induction, deduction, evaluation, critique, dialectics, research...

[subversion]

anything has to belong to itself to exist. There's no need arguing about it.