SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search




THE THEORY OF TYPES
745
than the one to which it as fact, or some aspect of it as fact, belongs, it is restricted. Thus "all men are mortal" is neither man nor mortal, and as condition does not determine itself as fact. Any proposition referring to that statement would be of a different type, and would deal with its truth, falsity, constituents, historical place, logical structure, etc. Though the unrestricted propositions have no limitations, the category to which they refer may have. Epimenides' remark, for example, referred only to Cretans. As his assertion was a determinate in the category, and as his statement of the supposed conditions imposed on the members of that category was not a possible argument to the general proposition, the general proposition was seen to be false or restricted. Had he said, "All Cretans tell the truth," he would have stated an unrestricted proposition which was possibly true. It could not be said to be necessarily true unless Cretans and lie, against the evidence of history, were actually contradictories.
Accordingly, we shall say: All true unrestricted propositions are arguments to themselves; or by transposition, those propositions which are not arguments to themselves are either restricted or false. As this proposition can take itself as argument it is possibly true. Unless no proposition is possible which does not conform to it,, it cannot be said to be necessarily true. I have not been able to demonstrate this and therefore accept it as a definition or "methodological principle of validation". The theory of types, in its most general form, may be stated as: A proposition or function of order n, which cannot be an argument to itself, is, as fact, an argument of a proposition or function of order n+1.
In accordance with the scheme of the criticism of the theory of types, we can describe our principle as (1) applying to all propositions, including (2) those which refer to it. (3) It is a formal implication with itself as one of its arguments. The theory of types, on the other hand, (1) does not apply to all propositions, but only to those which are restricted, (2) may apply to those propositions which refer to it, and (3) is a formal implication which cannot take itself as argument.
The theory of types cannot be an unrestricted proposition about all restricted propositions. As an unrestricted proposition it must take itself as argument; but its arguments are only those propositions which are not arguments to themselves. It cannot therefore be unrestricted without being restricted. Nor can it be a restricted proposition about all restricted propositions for it would then be one of the restricted propositions, and would have to take itself as argument - in which case it would be unrestricted. Hence it cannot be restricted without being unrestricted. Three possible solutions may be advanced. The first is that the theory of types is restricted and does not apply to all restricted propositions, but only to some of them. It is not an argument to itself but to some other proposition about restricted propositions. This in turn will have to be restricted and refer only to some propositions, and so on, giving us theories of types of various orders. The proposition made about the totality of these orders would be of a still higher order and would in turn presuppose a higher order ad infinitum. The theory of types thus depends on theories of types of theories of types without end. This seems probable on the