Hal asked:

I just happened upon your website and found myself enraptured by your virtual smorgasbord of ideas!
A question: "Are philosophical problems, problems of linguistic clarity and interpretation, or real
problems that transcend language itself, or are they an amalgamation of both linguistic and evidential
difficulties?"

Hal also asked:

What constitutes a paradox and if they do exist, then why do they exist? From my perspective there
seems to be a number of different kinds of paradoxes: apparent paradoxes (paradoxes which appear
to be, but after deeper reflection aren't), real paradoxes (paradoxes which stand unresolved after
prolonged scrutiny) and unrealized paradoxes (ones which exist but are not readily apparent). I have
read many explanations for the existence of paradoxes through the years:

1) the limitation of human comprehension

2) the imposition of flawed assumptions

3) the introduction of sin into creation

4) an irreducible fact of existence

5) a problem of frame of reference

6) the cognitive dissonance of order and chaos.

============

1) Thanks. In answer to your question: yes. I could stop there, haha... all of those types of problems
are philosophical problems, or can be. You have touched on one of the most ghastly areas of
philosophy... the whole question of whether there arephilosophical problems that can be addressed
as more than linguistic. I'm just not going to go on about this one... it's too big. Take a look at the
recent and excellent book: Wittgenstein's Poker, for an introduction to this issue, and how
Wittgenstein and Popper almost came to blows (as the legend goes) over it.

2) First, here's one of many sites on paradoxes: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3022/.
Now, how about these:

"a) the statement below is false.

b) the statement above is true."

Think about it. There are paradoxes which arise, inevitably, from the limitations of expressions within
"orders" of logic, given a language which does not contain an infinite number of (or the capability of
an infinite number of) meta-linguistic expressions. One can argue that natural languages dohave this
potentiality, and I tend to agree. Thus, we could make a natural-language meta-statement about a & b
above, and that meta-statement would not be a paradox. But we could not do this withinthe
propositional level at which the statement is formulated (at least in a formal language).

I would not say that human limitations give rise to paradox, in a formal sense of that term. You must
be careful in your use of "paradox". A paradox refers to a logically self-contradictory statement or set
of statements that cannotbe resolved. Now of course humans hold contradictory ideas all the time...
and so I guess you could say that someone who says one day that they believe in an infinitely
merciful god and the next that all sinners will burn forever in hell is being paradoxical... but it's a
paradox that is easily dismissible, as merely a contradiction that has not been resolved, but could be,
in a religious context. Whereas the logical paradox above (a & b) cannotbe resolved within its
context.

Flawed assumptions: a trivial case of paradox. "Sin"? I can usethe term, as in the above... but I don't
really feel that I understand it, not being a theist. It seems to have something to do with obeying
"laws" or commands that cannot be questioned... but as a philosopher, I hold that there are nosuch
laws or commands. A fact of existence? Um... what's "existence"? Again I don't understand your
terms. "Frame of reference" is usually a phrase in physics, or in cultural anthropology, or psychology.
The first leads, if at all, to logical paradoxes, the second and third, to the kind of "human" paradoxes I
mention above. Now you've completely left me behind. As you employ those terms, they are, as far
as I can tell, meaningless. "Order" and "chaos" are extremelyvague and/or complex terms, with
multiplemeanings in a hugevariety of arenas. "Cognitive dissonance" is a technical phrase
(originated by Festinger) in cognitive psychology which does involve paradox, again in the human
sense above, where someone holds contradictory ideas. Here's a site on that:
http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm. But it's not related to order and/or chaos in
anything but vague ways.

Steven Ravett Brown