Nothing like the ultimate self-referential fallacy. Discourses about reasoning by someone who cannot reason at all, is about as frustrating as beating one’s meat with a hammer. Well, maybe the latter actually has some perverse meaning while the other is just perverse? Hell, it is past my bed time.
Someone can interpret Latin into English, or English into Sanskrit, or some words into human action (being an analogic), but not language into language. Nor is it even a complete thought to say that I can interpret English, or Sanskrit, interpret it into what other language? Nor can one interpret English into English, however, the Supreme Court claims it can do just that in order to violate the Constitution, thinking everyone is as dumb as a box of rocks and won’t notice the fallacy. When it was written that the Supreme Court could interpret the Constitution, this could only mean effect policies for its expression, i,e. a logic into an analogic, not make what was written mean exactly the opposite logic contradict logic.
And to say, “Lies do not Exist” is a self referential fallacy to begin with. All language is based on a convention of words, meaning, as Plato pointed out, one cannot predicate existence nor deny it. Well, the village medicine man is still trying to use magic words.
Many people believe like a bunch of idiots do, who teach logic, that sentences are either true or false, as if by some magic, they wrote themselves-or that they, in or themselves, can comply with the principles of grammar, of which they are a part. Now that is a neat trick that takes place in environs of higher education, teaching magic in logic classes.
There is no language possible, that can be, in of itself, either true or false. Such a belief that it can is an anthropomorphism.
And how dumb does someone have to be to invent predicate logic–a language of a language? Starting with a self-referential fallacy to begin with? How can anyone even sit through the introduction of it and not fall out laughing?