Who can tell whether the sentence "I'm lying" is true or not ~ ~

"I'm telling a lie" comes from people's hearts. It's idealism and subjective judgment. It's hard for onlookers to determine the truth of this sentence. Maybe he is talking nonsense (lying), maybe he is telling the truth (telling a lie to you). Generally speaking, the person who said this should be telling the truth, in order to convince you that this is a lie, and it does not rule out particularity. "I am lying" is a famous philosophical proposition put forward by the Greek philosopher Aubrey.

Euboulides was born around 45 BC, and he is a representative of the Megara School in the Socratic School. After Socrates' death, his disciples inherited and developed his thoughts from different aspects, and the cynic school also belongs to the Socratic school.

Epimenides, a Greek philosopher in Crete in the 6th century BC, once said that "all Crete people are liars", which is the embryonic form of the proposition "I am lying". So, "I'm lying", is the person who said this lying? If this sentence is true, then he is lying; If this sentence is false, then he is telling the truth, thus forming an unsolvable paradox.

Since it was put forward, the liar's paradox has been deeply concerned by philosophers, and they have been seeking ways to solve it, but the result is not satisfactory. At the beginning of the 2th century, Russell, a famous philosopher and logician, also tried to solve this paradox. He pointed out that the crux of the liar's paradox lies in the "evil cycle of self-reference". Our language can be divided into two levels, the description of the whole and the description of the parts. The whole and the part are two different logical types, and the description of the whole cannot be attached to the description part, nor can it be regarded as the part of the whole itself. Pushing to the liar paradox, "I am lying" is a mathematical set, and I say that I am lying is a statement of this set, which is outside the set, and any hypothesis in the set can not judge whether the set is true or false. Therefore, Rosso thinks that the method of logical stratification can eliminate similar paradoxes.

Objectively speaking, Russell's logical hierarchy theory is a useful solution to the liar's paradox. Later, many logicians put forward some solutions, but so far there is no recognized method.

Perhaps many people just regard the liar paradox as a word game, or even as sophistry, which is a very wrong view.

it is not a whim for philosophers to put forward a proposition, which contains people's exploration of ultimate existence and reflection on contradictory meanings. In fact, the ideological essence of liar's paradox is a strong challenge to the dualistic thinking mode of "truth and falsehood". A paradox that cannot exist in formal logic is a normal existence in dialectical logic, and it is a very important existence.