METHODS FOR SOLVING ALL PARADOXES
METHOD 1: PAROXYSM
A paroxysm or solution to all paradoxes may be found by
taking the opposite of EVERY term in the best definition
of the problem, in the same order as the original words.
METHOD 2: REVERSAL
When the problem must remain a paradox, reversal may still be
permitted. This might be called 'prodoxysm' (defined to mean
any problem that solves a problem). For example, the opposite of
problem AB is problem BA.
METHOD 3: UNIVERSALS
Adding universals may sometimes serve as a solution, because
they exist both within the problem, and within the solution, and
thus, they remain valid throughout.
METHOD 4: GOD VARIABLES
Adding certain types of variables, such as those mentioned
HERE can result in symbolic solutions.
EXAMPLES OF METHOD 1: PAROXYSM
Sorites Paradox (Sound of Straw Falling):
Problem = Definite Continuum
Solution = Indefinite Definitions
Problem = Meaningless Continuum
Solution = Meaningful Divisions
Problem = "Noun lies. I am a noun"
Solution = "Anti-noun does not lie. I am not a noun"
Problem = "I am nothing lying"
Solution = "Nothing lies absolutely".
Problem = "Nothing lies about the truth".
Solution = "Even liars can tell true lies".
Paradox of the Arrow:
Problem = "Infinite Divisions of Matter"
Solution = "Finite Continuity Concept"
(otherwise, time is infinite).
"Involves ambiguity between hair and balding. The solution is
unambiguous hair and balding, or in other words, small amounts
of hair or large amounts of covered scalp." (---The Dimensional
Philosopher's Toolkit, 3rd Ed. p. 187)
Examples from Metaphysics:
Some metaphysical paradoxes are not true paradoxes, meaning
that they are not as well suited as Zeno's paradoxes.
Nonetheless, insofar as they are paradoxes, solutions can be
The Problem of the Brain-in-the-Vat is particularly difficult.
However, if it is seen as a metaphysical problem, then it has a
material solution. If it is seen as a physical problem, then it has a
metaphysical solution. Otherwise it can be seen as a semantic
problem, which has a rhetorical solution (if it's a rhetorical
problem, however, it has a practical solution).
Metaphysical Paradox Described by Vlastos
"Ambiguous Middle Subject Problem"
"Arbitrary Extreme Context Solution"
Insisting it is a problem is insisting it has a solution.
Otherwise, it might not be a problem.
Or, it might not be universal.
EXAMPLES OF METHOD 2: REVERSAL
For example, 'having a paradox' might be a 'paradox of having'.
Having might not be a problem, or a paradox might not be a
'God's paradox' might be 'a paradoxical God'. Being without God
might be a solution.
A 'substantial paradox' might be a 'paradoxical substance'. Being
without substance could be a solution.
These use what are called syntactical opposites such as those
used in categorical deduction. A categorical deduction has a
formally identical syntactical opposite, as it's formal properties
EXAMPLES OF METHOD 3: UNIVERSALS
This may also be seen as a strong-arm version of prodoxysm, or
the solution by acceptability of the paradox.
For example, 'I love the paradox as it truly is' may be a solution
so long as love is universal, or so long as the paradox has
Another example is if 'The paradox is functional just as it is'.
There might be an exceptional case where the paradox solves
more problems than it creates, in spite of being paradoxical. For
example, something similar to Solomon and the Baby. The formal
properties of this idea involve adding additional paradoxes to
create a solution.
EXAMPLES OF METHOD 4: GOD VARIABLES
If a given paradox can be negated, this may create God in the
solution, if God is the opposite of nothing. Therefore, if one can
argue there is God, one might argue there is no paradox. Or, one
can argue that God is paradoxical, and therefore, there is no
problem with the paradox, since it is God. In my terminology God
is a variable that is the opposite of nothingness, and has
miraculous properties like being the sum of infinite undefined
Similarly, if the problem is 'one' the solution may be 'infinite', if
infinity is the opposite of 'one'. Or, an infinite problem may have
just one solution. This principle is summed up by the idea of
By extension, the variables of coherence and incoherence can
also be used opposing each other. A problem involving incoherent
'nothing' would implicate a coherent god. The only way to create a
problem here would be if the problem was universal, or if god was
incoherent, or if nothing was universal, or if the problem is
absolute, or under exceptional conditions, approximately.
Some of the above is also available as an academic article with
citations at: THE SOLUTION TO ALL PARADOXES
BACK TO SYSTEMS