On Kripke’s Dogmatism Paradox: A Logical Dynamical Analysis

As a by-product of solving the coincidence test paradox Solkripk proposed a "doctrinal paradox" that seems to indicate that knowledge requires doctrinal theory. In this paper, the author analyzes the nature of the doctrinal paradox from the viewpoint of logic mechanics. The authors believe that doctrinal paradoxes are better understood as knowledge attribution rather than knowledge paradoxes. Therefore, you can solve the doctrinal paradox without sacrificing the trapped principle of enlightenment. Based on the relevant alternative theory of the famous version, the authors analyzed the logic of knowledge attribution, ie how to reuse knowledge attribution by formalizing public undo logic and expanding related substitutions.

Affiliation: 1: Sichuan Department of Philosophy, Chengdu 610065 xuzhaoqing@scu.edu.cn

Kripke found a doctrinal paradox in 1972. After 40 years of commentary and secondary literature, fortunately, you can print the original announcement of public opinion. Concerned about Kripke's "knowledge of the two paradoxes" my goal is to solve the paradox - and perhaps it is unrealistic and inappropriate, my goal is not to agree with a particular knowledge theory is. Just to be sure please solve it. Basically a citation by Kripke (2011) and some short comments section 1 represents a paradox. Section 2 provides a definition of the doctrinal concept of the proposition and Section 3 makes a (well known) distinction between the two meanings of "should" in the sentence. It helps to ensure that all forms of recommended dogmatism do not have the same degree of eccentricity

As a by-product of solving the coincidence test paradox Solkripk proposed a "doctrinal paradox" that seems to indicate that knowledge requires doctrinal theory. In this paper, the author analyzes the nature of the doctrinal paradox from the viewpoint of logic mechanics. The authors believe that doctrinal paradoxes are better understood as knowledge attribution rather than knowledge paradoxes. Therefore, you can solve the doctrinal paradox without sacrificing the trapped principle of enlightenment. Based on the relevant alternative theory of the famous version, the authors analyzed the logic of knowledge attribution, ie how to reuse knowledge attribution by formalizing public undo logic and expanding related substitutions.