Question

...
Jorge

Any Fallacies; A Meaningful Game!

One of the axioms in set theory, extensionality, says that if two sets have the same elements, then they're equal. 

Let's define "meaning" as the set of all meaningful things. For example, "the dog" is not in that set because it is not meaningful. 

Is "meaning" a member of itself? Why or why not?  

asked on Tuesday, Jul 05, 2022 05:02:42 PM by Jorge

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Like the Site? You'll Love the Book!

This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are.  The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning.  With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Jorge
2

Well, "Let's define "meaning" as the set of all meaningful things."

That is too vague to qualify as a set, as "meaningful things" is subjective, and not absolute.

To you, [dictionary content] can be meaningful, whereas to me, [caxiphalian neo-pluralism] is far more meaningful.

I hope that answers your question.

answered on Tuesday, Jul 05, 2022 06:00:07 PM by Jorge

Jorge Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
Jorge writes:

I don't know how to edit my question but I should've mentioned Cantor's theorem instead of extensionality. 

I think by meaning we mean sentences with predicate and a subject. Or maybe the mode of presenting the referent.

posted on Tuesday, Jul 05, 2022 07:21:33 PM