Apart from explaining why statements are opinions (which none of you who have replied have taken to my post), isn’t the paradox simply the statement “All statements are opinions” being a statement of opinion itself?
Edit: That is if he is implying that there can be no such thing as “truth”; only opinions.
The claimed paradox is that statements are at once opinions and not opinions. Why they should not be opinions hasn’t been even suggested in the OP. It seems that no one but the OP belives that this is the case. The paradox remains a mystery.
I have a t-shirt w/ JL Austin on it that says, Perlocutionary acts? Don’t ask me!
Check this out…
tresnormale.com/index.php/Philosophers.html
Austin was a nutball. Probably would have cleaned up on Jeopardy. He said so much about language that he said nothing at all.
You’re probably right.
Then that possibly cannot make any sense, unless realunoriginal were to make a little less ambiguous what he was implying was “both false and true”.
We could take his statement in many different directions…
Realunoriginal, did you intend this question to be ambiguous? There are many different ways to interpret this.
After been explained of what he meant, I have come to a conclusion to this which he may not have wanted:
There is no such thing as “fact”, because we are finite creatures with a finite mind who cannot possibly fathom the entirety of everything.
It is only “fact” if you wish to be arrogant and call your opinions “fact”.
I would go even further in saying that all statements are opinions or learned opinions from others.
When you go to school you are merely learning opinions of dead men and women who are long gone.
Opinions and knowledge going hand in hand is a consequence of language.
[b]Take the color red for instance:
That particular shade wasn’t anything until a man or woman gave their opinion in defining it as red.
Before that shade was given meaning, value or definition it remained undefined until someone with a opinion defined it as such.
[/b]
A definition isn’t an opinion, it’s a definition. When I call my child John it’s not my opinion that he’s called John, I ‘define’ him as John. If that becomes his accepted name, then it’s not like my partner can be of the opinion that he’s not called John. She might want to call him something else, but thats not the same thing. At least if we’re talking in terms of everyday use of these words, that seems right, surely?
Is there any alternative?
When you name a child at birth your expressing your opinion as to what they shall be named or called by your own preference. 
In reality there is no reason why such and such a person should be called this or that but in our opinion we believe that they should have a label to be addressed as.
She could call him Joe for short or give him a nickname.
If someone can show me a excellent explanation in how a definition is more different than a opinion I would gladly like to see it.
Opinion = belief expressed thought to be true.
fact = verified by mountains of evidence.
So, most facts can be opinions but they are more then just opinions.
For example, the sun really exists, independently of opinion.
Like I said, you changed your post. I think I might agree now. I thought you were making a different point.
Do you agree that most facts are assumed to be true?
The only thing true or real about a object and thing is the object and thing by themselves without labels.
If I read somthing or describe somthing that is only a constructed opinion but if I feel, see, and expirience somthing without labeling definitions only then does it become real.
Feeling is the only thing more then just opinions and some feelings are best felt without definitions or opinions in that there are some things that no language can describe.
The biggest problem with opinions, perceived facts, classifications, and categorizations is our habit of lobotomizing objects or things where instead of looking at a object directly we instead look at it through lens of mere words.
Irving - as it happens, a proper name is not a good example. Proper names are names if anything is a name (there has been some dispute, historically), but even if everyone uses that name for your son, the proper name that you chose, all this does is point to an individual - “John” doesn’t constitute an assertion about this individual. You haven’t defined John, you have only labelled him.
Has anyone seen Saul Kripke around here?
“Facts” are opinions that have more unshakeable logic than others, nothing more.
Existence exists, but truly there is no “fact” here, we cannot understand the whole of everything.
We need to be absurd in order to actually talk and function. That is the lesson learnt from this.
A fact is a “generally accepted” - something: belief, opinion, piece of knowledge - you pick it. I’m sure not going to champion the idea that we can have certain knowledge. But a fact is generally accepted, as opposed to being held by only the speaker, for instance.
All men are mortal - is this a fact? Or is it merely a partial definition? Is it news, is it synthetic knowledge to learn that men die? Or do we define “man” partly as something that lives and dies?
It depends on the context. Facts are malleable. And they exist only in language.
The Sun is that star that “rises” every day. But maybe it’s a god. Maybe once you know the science, it’s still a god.
Facts are funny that way.
Statements must be accepted as making assertions - the statements that Ayer would approve of must be accepted by all users as containing a fact, prior to being used in a logical argument. Kripke agrees that common acceptance is vital, but also includes some purely hallucinatory considerations.