Paradoxes often arise due to the limitations of human language and our tendency to make assumptions. We construct paradoxes when we encounter situations that challenge our understanding or expectations. However, these paradoxes may not truly exist in reality, but rather result from our inability to accurately articulate or comprehend certain concepts.
Linguistic reasoning, although a powerful tool for communication and understanding, has its limitations. Language can be imprecise, leading to misunderstandings and contradictions. Those paradoxes which are most talked mostly emerge because someone reasoned badly but presented well. Sometimes, though, paradoxes present themselves just because of a reliance on linguistic reasoning — failure to considering other epistemological modes.
Described below are Bertrand Russell's Barber Paradox, the Ship of Theseus, etc. These paradoxes challenge our understanding of identity, claims to truth, and change over time. However, they may simply be artifacts of our linguistic limitations and assumptions.
In the case of Russell's Paradox, the paradox arises from the assumption that a set can contain itself. By questioning the assumption itself, we can avoid the paradox and recognize that the scenario presented is logically flawed. Interestingly, some sets can contain themselves, not most, but … you know what? We’ll get into it below.
Similarly, the Ship of Theseus Paradox and the Grandfather’s Axe Paradox challenge our understanding of identity and the nature of change. However, by considering different perspectives and definitions of identity, we can see that these paradoxes arise from simple cognitive rigidity. While this kind of matter may seem trite, while it may not seem like a line of thinking with salience for social changemakers, nothing could be further from the truth. It is the failure to become competent in this very domain of thinking that fuels some of the greatest errors in community stewardship, drives cancelation campaigns, and makes so many power-building campaigns short lived or still born.
Building on these thought experiments, this chapter moves into examples from everyday economic experiences, a devastating misunderstanding during a genocide, and some hints about how we get these these things wrong and might correct them using games of strategy and basic arithmetic.
By acknowledging the limitations of linguistic reasoning and critically examining the assumptions we make, we can argue that paradoxes are not inherent in the nature of things but are instead a result of our imperfect understanding and expression. Through a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to reasoning, we can strive to resolve apparent paradoxes and gain deeper insights into the complexities of the world.
Okay. Okay. I get it. I billed this book as a work on social change and all I’m offering is an ivory tower exposition of the Walrus and the Carpenter. Here’s the thing. There’s actually a lot going on in the Walrus and the Carpenter. For those who take the time to take this all in, there’s going to be a pay off. There has been for me and mine, and I hope the same thing for you.
If you’d like to make sure that you don’t miss anything, sign up to stay notified here.