đź“™ The Outsider

(Albert Camus | 1913–1960)

Fiction is the lie through which we tell the truth.

Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is.

The laconic masterpiece — The Outsider — by Albert Camus is about a Frenchman who murders an Arab in colonial Algeria. The work is famous for the way it diagnoses the state of alienation and spiritual exhaustion which sociologists sat summed up the mood of mid-twentieth century Europe. To this day, the book continues to be relevant and remains one of the most widely read and influential works of the 20th century.

Albert Camus won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957. He was also a philosopher and journalist.

His other notable works include:

* The Rebel is a philosophical exploration of the idea of ‘rebellion’ that ooks at artistic and political rebels throughout history, from Epicurus to the Marquis de Sade.

** The Myth of Sisyphus is a summation of the existentialist philosophy threaded throughout all of his other writing. Camus poses the fundamental question: is life worth living? If human existence holds no significance, what can keep us from suicide? As Camus argues, if there is no God to give meaning to our lives, humans must take on that purpose themselves. This is our ‘absurd’ task, like Sisyphus forever rolling his rock up a hill, as the inevitability of death constantly overshadows us.

Friedrich Nietzsche

(German | 1844–1900)

The problem of how to live a life with meaning has puzzled philosophers since the days of ancient Greece, China, and India. Yet, for Nietzsche, the problem took on a new importance in the aftermath of the Enlightenment and what he saw this as resulting in; the death of god.

It is often said that Nietzsche is a nihilist but, it’s not so simple. In fact, much of his work is concerned with the problem of overcoming nihilism despite all the things (life problems) that drive people towards acting in a nihilistic way.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster… if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Nietzsche’s was focused on this: in an increasingly secular and scientific society we humans could no longer turn to god/religion to find meaning. In the past (or for religious people today( the meaning of everything was assured by God. So, Nietzsche pondered, without the ability to turn to god, where could we find meaning?

Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: “master morality” and “slave morality”. Master morality values pride and power, while slave morality values things like kindness, empathy, and sympathy.

Key point:

Nietzsche believed that the Christian morality, with its emphasis on kindness, meekness, subservience to a greater good, and a focus on the afterlife rather than the present condition, did not reflect how the world actually works.

Instead of relativism, Nietzsche advocates for something that has been called “perspectivism.” Simply put, perspectivism means that every claim, belief, idea, or philosophy is tied to some perspective and that it’s impossible for humans to detach themselves from these lenses in order to learn about objective Truth.

According to Nietzsche perspectivism isn’t the same as relativism because unlike relativism (which says all views are equally valid because they’re relevant to each person) perspectivism doesn’t claim that all perspectives have equal value — some are in fact better than others.

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

— my why is you J and that is how I can bear the now (which basically is hell).

✍🏻 1+1=1

11:11 (mine’s made)

  My reason for Being is you
  & it’s Nothingness without you.

In love, one and one are one.

— Jean-Paul Sartre

No one is more arrogant toward women than the man who is anxious about his virility.

— Simone de Beauvoir

The phrase, “love kills” sounds like an emotional over exaggeration. It is. It is until the day your true love leaves you that is. Only then will the phrase be seen as a valid statement of fact. (It is bitterly ironic that you’ll almost certainly not know that they were and ‘are’ your true love until they’ve gone and left you.)

I’ll argue here that ‘true’ love—love of the passionate & romantic kind—can only be experienced once in a lifetime. I’ll also argue that it is almost always our own actions that result in true love being lost.

It is invariably the case that in passionate romantic relationships, we turn the person that we love into an object. This ‘object’ is not only a projection of what we think that person wants to be but also, a reaction to our own insecurities and repressed desires. We try not to, but we end up trying to control our lover. We try not to, but we end up trying to shape our lover. We adopt a different persona to be what we think they want us to be and, we try also to be who we ourselves really want to (but can never actually) be.

Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre argue that these are the reasons for why truly passionate relationships almost always fail. Indeed, one of their central philosophical arguments is that we, as post-faith humans, need to come to terms with the fact that we ourselves are responsible for the consequences of our actions (e.g., the hurtful and horrible words we type and send).

Inescapably, our actions in acts of passion and love are our own. We cannot blame destiny, fate or some form of invisible hand that mysteriously controls us from above. The guilt trips, ego trips and insane irrational jealousies are of our own making. Our self-centred, short-term actions can, and often do, have long-run catastrophic consequences.

Does, as some have argued, knowledge of this agency and responsibility help us deal with our true love leaving us? I’ll say no. Indeed, knowing just how big a role our own actions played, makes the situation even more heart wrenching; the what ifs are rendered less abstract. Had we acted differently (e.g., shown more appreciation and understanding), we’d likely not have lost them in the first place.

I believe that true love can only be experienced once because all previous experiences of love pale to nothing in the aftermath of losing your true love. I believe that true love can only be experienced once because no alternative or future love can be contemplated in the everlasting aftermath of your true love leaving you.

The way true love kills us is unique for unlike other modes of death it keeps us alive to experience the depths of despair and desperation on a daily basis. We are condemned to this undying death minute by minute, endlessly and perpetually. This mode of death is all the worse for knowing that, had we acted differently, we would most probably still be hand in hand and side by side with our retrospectively realised One&Only.

From you to me
Our eyes locked. They locked for far longer than was culturally appropriate.
From me to you
These were consumed. They were consumed with the lights on and, with the lights off.

p.s. To grasp and pay heed to the logic of de Beauvoir and Sartre would be of real benefit to those who have yet to find true love.

La Ville Lumière

đź’€ The dead control the living.

There are various influential French philosophers and the following are amongst the most prominent /

In no particular order /

René Descartes
In his seminal work, Discourse on Method, Descartes defined thought as the essential human quality — “I think, therefore I am” — and sets out one of the key characteristics of the French style of thinking: the deductive mode of reasoning. That is, one which starts with a general, abstract proposition and then works towards a specific conclusion.

The reading of all good books is like a conversation with the finest minds of past centuries.

The greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices as well as of the greatest virtues.

Except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power.

Voltaire was an outspoken advocate of civil liberties, despite the risk this placed him in under the strict censorship laws of the time. Voltaire believed above all in the efficacy of reason. He believed social progress could be achieved through reason and that no authority — religious or political or otherwise — should be immune to challenge by reason. Voltaire frequently made use of his works to criticise intolerance and religious dogma.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Let us read, and let us dance; these two amusements will never do any harm to the world.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Rousseau’s writings on human freedom, equality, popular sovereignty and the return to nature challenged the social and political conventions of 18th‑century French society, and founded the radical republican tradition. His Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract are cornerstones in modern political and social thought.

The world of reality has its limits; the world of imagination is boundless.

Nature never deceives us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

Jules Michelet
Greatest French historian of his time, whose blistering account of the French revolution dwelled on the importance of emotions, myths and symbols; he championed the cause of “the people”, arguing that history is decisively shaped by the interventions of the masses.

He who would confine his thought to present time will not understand present reality.

Jean-Paul Sartre
Sartre confronted all the powerful institutions of his time (the bourgeois state, the Communist party, the university system); his writings on existentialism and Marxism in the post-second world war decades marked the pinnacle of the French traditions of republican universalism and philosophical radicalism.

When the rich wage war it’s the poor who die.

Freedom is what you do with what’s been done to you.

Simone de Beauvoir
Simone de Beauvoir was well versed in philosophy, politics and social issues. Her seminal work was The Second Sex (1949), which drew on existentialist philosophy to offer a ground-breaking account of women’s oppression. It is a pivotal contribution to modern feminism.

No one is more arrogant toward women, more aggressive or scornful, than the man who is anxious about his virility.

All oppression creates a state of war.

Claude LĂ©vi-Strauss
An ethnologist who became the most important exponent of structuralism, a philosophical movement that challenged the linearity of Cartesian rationalism by questioning its assumptions about progress and the fixed nature of meaning, and stressing the importance of dissonances and the unconscious in human thinking.

The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers, [they are] one who asks the right questions.

Michel Foucault
Foucault’s theories primarily address the relationship between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions. His work explored the ways in which modern societies imposed various forms of intellectual and physical control on their citizens, ranging from dominant norms and coercive state controls to medical and sexual practices.

What desire can be contrary to nature since it was given to [us] by nature itself.

Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité

On being Stoic

Stoicism 101

“The endurance of hardship without complaint.”


Stoicism does not focus on complicated theories, it focuses on how one can overcome one’s own destructive emotions and act upon what one can actually act upon.


Three individuals helped create and shape stoicism, they were: Marcus Aurelius, an emperor of the Roman Empire (he is said to have sat down each day to write himself notes about restraint, compassion and humility. Epictetus the Slave, who endured the horrors of being a slave but later went on to set up a school where he taught many of Rome’s VIPs and intellectuals. And another Roman great called Seneca the Serene.


Stoicism’s key points: (a) it sets out to remind us of how unpredictable the world can be (b), how brief our moment of life is (c), how to be steadfast, and strong, and in control of yourself and (d), that the source of our dissatisfaction lies in our impulsive dependency on our reflexive senses rather than logic.


The free & exploring mind

is the most valuable thing


And this I believe:

that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world.

And this I would fight for:

the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected.

And this I must fight against:

any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual.

This is what I am and what I am about.


Greek | λογική | argument, idea, thought

Logic is one of the main branches of philosophy. It is the study of rational argument and inference. Logic is the study of arguments and their properties. It is claimed that it is the methodological core of all intellectual disciplines.

Logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. It deals only with propositions (declarative sentences, used to make an assertion, as opposed to questions, commands or sentences expressing wishes) that are capable of being true and false.

Logic covers core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, as well as specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and arguments involving causality and argumentation theory. (It is not concerned with the psychological processes connected with thought, or with emotions, images and the like.)

Logic asks questions like

  • “What is correct reasoning?”
  • “What distinguishes a good argument from a bad one?”
  • “How can we detect a fallacy in reasoning?”

Logical systems should have three things: consistency (which means that none of the theorems of the system contradict one another); soundness (which means that the system’s rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise); and completeness (which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system).

History of Logic

Modern logic descends mainly from the Ancient Greek tradition. Both Plato and Aristotle conceived of logic as the study of argument and from a concern with the correctness of argumentation. Aristotle produced six works on logic, known collectively as the “Organon”, the first of these, the “Prior Analytics”, being the first explicit work in formal logic.

Aristotle espoused two principles of great importance in logic, the Law of Excluded Middle (that every statement is either true or false) and the Law of Non-Contradiction (confusingly, also known as the Law of Contradiction, that no statement is both true and false). He is perhaps most famous for introducing the syllogism (or term logic). His followers, known as the Peripatetics, further refined his work on logic.

In medieval times, Aristotelian logic (or dialectics) was studied, along with grammar and rhetoric, as one of the three main strands of the trivium, the foundation of a medieval liberal arts education.

In the 18th Century, Immanuel Kant argued that logic should be conceived as the science of judgment, so that the valid inferences of logic follow from the structural features of judgments, although he still maintained that Aristotle had essentially said everything there was to say about logic as a discipline.

In the 20th Century, however, the work of Gottlob Frege, Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell on Symbolic Logic, turned Kant‘s assertion on its head. This new logic, expounded in their joint work “Principia Mathematica”, is much broader in scope than Aristotelian logic, and even contains classical logic within it, albeit as a minor part. It resembles a mathematical calculus and deals with the relations of symbols to each other.

Types of Logic

Logic in general can be divided into:
1. Formal Logic,
2. Informal Logic,
3. Symbolic Logic
4. Mathematical Logic,

  • 1. Formal Logic is what we think of as traditional logic or philosophical logic, namely the study of inference with purely formal and explicit content (i.e. it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule), such as the rules of formal logic that have come down to us from Aristotle. (See the section on Deductive Logic below).

    A formal system (also called a logical calculus) is used to derive one expression (conclusion) from one or more other expressions (premises). These premises may be axioms (a self-evident proposition, taken for granted) or theorems (derived using a fixed set of inference rules and axioms, without any additional assumptions).

    Formalism is the philosophical theory that formal statements (logical or mathematical) have no intrinsic meaning but that its symbols (which are regarded as physical entities) exhibit a form that has useful applications.

  • 2. Informal Logic is a recent discipline which studies natural language arguments, and attempts to develop a logic to assess, analyze and improve ordinary language (or “everyday”) reasoning. Natural language here means a language that is spoken, written or signed by humans for general-purpose communication, as distinguished from formal languages (such as computer-programming languages) or constructed languages (such as Esperanto).

    It focuses on the reasoning and argument one finds in personal exchange, advertising, political debate, legal argument, and the social commentary that characterizes newspapers, television, the Internet and other forms of mass media.

  • 3. Symbolic Logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference. It deals with the relations of symbols to each other, often using complex mathematical calculus, in an attempt to solve intractable problems traditional formal logic is not able to address.
  • 4. Mathematical logic is both the application of the techniques of formal logic to mathematics and mathematical reasoning, and, conversely, the application of mathematical techniques to the representation and analysis of formal logic.

    Computer science emerged as a discipline in the 1940’s with the work of Alan Turing (1912 – 1954) on the Entscheidungs problem, which followed from the theories of Kurt Gödel (1906 – 1978), particularly his incompleteness theorems. In the 1950s and 1960s, researchers predicted that when human knowledge could be expressed using logic with mathematical notation, it would be possible to create a machine that reasons (or artificial intelligence), although this turned out to be more difficult than expected because of the complexity of human reasoning.

Deductive Logic

Deductive reasoning concerns what follows necessarily from given premises (i.e. from a general premise to a particular one). An inference is deductively valid if (and only if) there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false. However, it should be remembered that a false premise can possibly lead to a false conclusion.

Deductive reasoning was developed by Aristotle, Thales, Pythagoras and other Greek philosophers of the Classical Period. At the core of deductive reasoning is the syllogism (also known as term logic),usually attributed to Aristotle), where one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises), each of which has one term in common with the conclusion. For example:
Major premise: All humans are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is human.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
An example of deduction is:
All apples are fruit.
All fruits grow on trees.
Therefore all apples grow on trees.

One might deny the initial premises, and therefore deny the conclusion. But anyone who accepts the premises must accept the conclusion. Today, some academics claim that Aristotle’s system has little more than historical value, being made obsolete by the advent of Predicate Logic and Propositional Logic.

Inductive Logic

Inductive reasoning is the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observations (i.e. from the particular to the general), so that the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion, but do not necessarily ensure it. Inductive logic is not concerned with validity or conclusiveness, but with the soundness of those inferences for which the evidence is not conclusive.
Many philosophers, including David Hume, Karl Popper and David Miller, have disputed or denied the logical admissibility of inductive reasoning. In particular, Hume argued that it requires inductive reasoning to arrive at the premises for the principle of inductive reasoning, and therefore the justification for inductive reasoning is a circular argument.
An example of strong induction (an argument in which the truth of the premise would make the truth of the conclusion probable but not definite) is:

All observed crows are black.

All crows are black.
An example of weak induction (an argument in which the link between the premise and the conclusion is weak, and the conclusion is not even necessarily probable) is:

I always hang pictures on nails.

All pictures hang from nails.

Modal Logic

Modal Logic is any system of formal logic that attempts to deal with modalities (expressions associated with notions of possibility, probability and necessity). Modal Logic, therefore, deals with terms such as “eventually”, “formerly”, “possibly”, “can”, “could”, “might”, “may”, “must”, etc.
Modalities are ways in which propositions can be true or false. Types of modality include:

  • Alethic Modalities: Includes possibility and necessity, as well as impossibility and contingency. Some propositions are impossible (necessarily false), whereas others are contingent (both possibly true and possibly false).

  • Temporal Modalities: Historical and future truth or falsity. Some propositions were true/false in the past and others will be true/false in the future.

  • Deontic Modalities: Obligation and permissibility. Some propositions ought to be true/false, while others are permissible.

  • Epistemic Modalities: Knowledge and belief. Some propositions are known to be true/false, and others are believed to be true/false.

Although Aristotle‘s logic is almost entirely concerned with categorical syllogisms, he did anticipate modal logic to some extent, and its connection with potentiality and time. Modern modal logic was founded by Gottlob Frege, although he initially doubted its viability, and it was only later developed by Rudolph Carnap (1891 – 1970), Kurt Gödel (1906 – 1978), C.I. Lewis (1883 – 1964) and then Saul Kripke (1940 – ) who established System K, the form of Modal Logic that most scholars use today).

Propositional Logic

Propositional Logic (or Sentential Logic) is concerned only with sentential connectives and logical operators (such as “and”, “or”, “not”, “if … then …”, “because” and “necessarily”), as opposed to Predicate Logic, which also concerns itself with the internal structure of atomic propositions.

Propositional Logic, then, studies ways of joining and/or modifying entire propositions, statements or sentences to form more complex propositions, statements or sentences, as well as the logical relationships and properties that are derived from these methods of combining or altering statements. In propositional logic, the simplest statements are considered as indivisible units.

The Stoic philosophers in the late 3rd century B.C. attempted to study such statement operators as “and”, “or” and “if … then …”, and Chrysippus (c. 280-205 B.C.) advanced a kind of propositional logic, by marking out a number of different ways of forming complex premises for arguments. This system was also studied by Medieval logicians, although propositional logic did not really come to fruition until the mid-19th Century, with the advent of Symbolic Logic in the work of logicians such as Augustus DeMorgan (1806-1871), George Boole (1815-1864) and Gottlob Frege.

Predicate Logic

Predicate Logic allows sentences to be analyzed into subject and argument in several different ways, unlike Aristotelian syllogistic logic, where the forms that the relevant part of the involved judgments took must be specified and limited (see the section on Deductive Logic above). Predicate Logic is also able to give an account of quantifiers general enough to express all arguments occurring in natural language, thus allowing the solution of the problem of multiple generality that had perplexed medieval logicians.

For instance, it is intuitively clear that if:

Some cat is feared by every mouse
then it follows logically that:
All mice are afraid of at least one cat

but because the sentences above each contain two quantifiers (‘some’ and ‘every’ in the first sentence and ‘all’ and ‘at least one’ in the second sentence), they cannot be adequately represented in traditional logic.

Predicate logic was designed as a form of mathematics, and as such is capable of all sorts of mathematical reasoning beyond the powers of term or syllogistic logic. In first-order logic (also known as first-order predicate calculus), a predicate can only refer to a single subject, but predicate logic can also deal with second-order logic, higher-order logic, many-sorted logic or infinitary logic. It is also capable of many commonsense inferences that elude term logic, and (along with Propositional Logic – see below) has all but supplanted traditional term logic in most philosophical circles.

Predicate Logic was initially developed by Gottlob Frege and Charles Peirce in the late 19th Century, but it reached full fruition in the Logical Atomism of Whitehead and Russell in the 20th Century (developed out of earlier work by Ludwig Wittgenstein).


A logical fallacy is any sort of mistake in reasoning or inference, or, essentially, anything that causes an argument to go wrong. There are two main categories of fallacy, Fallacies of Ambiguity and Contextual Fallacies:

  • Fallacies of Ambiguity: a term is ambiguous if it has more than one meaning. There are two main types:

    • equivocation: where a single word can be used in two different senses.

    • amphiboly: where the ambiguity arises due to sentence structure (often due to dangling participles or the inexact use of negatives), rather than the meaning of individual words.

  • Contextual Fallacies: which depend on the context or circumstances in which sentences are used. There are many different types, among the more common of which are:

    • Fallacies of Significance: where it is unclear whether an assertion is significant or not.

    • Fallacies of Emphasis: the incorrect emphasis of words in a sentence.

    • Fallacies of Quoting Out of Context: the manipulation of the context of a quotation.

    • Fallacies of Argumentum ad Hominem: a statement cannot be shown to be false merely because the individual who makes it can be shown to be of defective character.

    • Fallacies of Arguing from Authority: truth or falsity cannot be proven merely because the person saying it is considered an “authority” on the subject.

    • Fallacies of Arguments which Appeal to Sentiments: reporting how people feel about something in order to persuade rather than prove.

    • Fallacies of Argument from Ignorance: a statement cannot be proved true just because there is no evidence to disprove it.

    • Fallacies of Begging the Question: a circular argument, where effectively the same statement is used both as a premise and as a conclusion.

    • Fallacies of Composition: the assumption that what is true of a part is also true of the whole.

    • Fallacies of Division: the converse assumption that what is true of a whole must be also true of all of its parts.

    • Fallacies of Irrelevant Conclusion: where the conclusion concerns something other than what the argument was initially trying to prove.

    • Fallacies of Non-Sequitur: an argumentative leap, where the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

    • Fallacies of Statistics: statistics can be manipulated and biased to “prove” many different hypotheses.


A paradox is a statement or sentiment that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true in fact. Conversely, a paradox may be a statement that is actually self-contradictory (and therefore false) even though it appears true. Typically, either the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true or cannot all be true together.

The recognition of ambiguities, equivocations and unstated assumptions underlying known paradoxes has led to significant advances in science, philosophy and mathematics. But many paradoxes (e.g. Curry’s Paradox) do not yet have universally accepted resolutions.

It can be argued that there are four classes of paradoxes:

  • Veridical Paradoxes: which produce a result that appears absurd but can be demonstrated to be nevertheless true.

  • Falsidical Paradoxes: which produce a result that not only appears false but actually is false.

  • Antinomies: which are neither veridical nor falsidical, but produce a self-contradictory result by properly applying accepted ways of reasoning.

  • Dialetheias: which produce a result which is both true and false at the same time and in the same sense.

Paradoxes often result from self-reference (where a sentence or formula refers to itself directly), infinity (an argument which generates an infinite regress, or infinite series of supporting references), circular definitions (in which a proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises), vagueness (where there is no clear fact of the matter whether a concept applies or not), false or misleading statements (assertions that are either willfully or unknowingly untrue or misleading), and half-truths (deceptive statements that include some element of truth).

Some famous paradoxes include:

  • Epimenides’ Liar Paradox: Epimenides was a Cretan who said “All Cretans are liars.” Should we believe him?

  • Liar Paradox (2): “This sentence is false.”

  • Liar Paradox (3): “The next sentence is false. The previous sentence is true.”

  • Curry’s Paradox: “If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists.”

  • Quine’s Paradox: “yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation” yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
  • Russell’s Barber Paradox: If a barber shaves all and only those men in the village who do not shave themselves, does he shave himself?
  • Grandfather Paradox: Suppose a time traveler goes back in time and kills his grandfather when the latter was only a child. If his grandfather dies in childhood, then the time traveler cannot be born. But if the time traveler is never born, how can he have traveled back in time in the first place?
  • Zeno’s Dichotomy Paradox: Before a moving object can travel a certain distance (e.g. a person crossing a room), it must get halfway there. Before it can get halfway there, it must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, it must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on. As this sequence goes on forever, an infinite number of points must be crossed, which is logically impossible in a finite period of time, so the distance will never be covered (the room crossed, etc).
  • Zeno’s Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise: If Achilles allows the tortoise a head start in a race, then by the time Achilles has arrived at the tortoise’s starting point, the tortoise has already run on a shorter distance. By the time Achilles reaches that second point, the tortoise has moved on again, etc, etc. So Achilles can never catch the tortoise.
  • Zeno’s Arrow Paradox: If an arrow is fired from a bow, then at any moment in time, the arrow either is where it is, or it is where it is not. If it moves where it is, then it must be standing still, and if it moves where it is not, then it can’t be there. Thus, it cannot move at all.
  • Theseus’ Ship Paradox: After Theseus died, his ship was put up for public display. Over time, all of the planks had rotted at one time or another, and had been replaced with new matching planks. If nothing remained of the actual “original” ship, was this still Theseus’ ship?
  • Sorites (Heap of Sand) Paradox: If you take away one grain of sand from a heap, it is still a heap. If grains are individually removed, is it still a heap when only one grain remains? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
  • Petronius’ Paradox: “Moderation in all things, including moderation.”
  • Paradoxical Notice: “Please ignore this notice.”
  • Moore’s paradox: “It will rain but I don’t believe that it will.”
  • Schrödinger’s Cat: There is a cat in a sealed box, and the cat’s life or death is dependent on the state of a particular subatomic particle. According to quantum mechanics, the particle only has a definite state at the exact moment of quantum measurement, so that the cat remains both alive and dead until the moment the box is opened.


Farmand, M (2015) Schrödinger’s Cat. Retrieved, mitrafarmand.com/comic/
Mastin, L. (2009). Logic. Retrieved, philosophybasics.com/branch_logic
Penguin (2007). The Penguin English Dictionary (3rd ed.). London: Penguin.