Answered
If a man says 'I always lie' is he lying or is he telling the truth?
It's a paradox, if you answer anyway is wrong. If he's telling the truth them he would be lying, if he was lying then he would be telling the truth. He's lying There's …no paradox. Just because it's not true that he always lies does not mean that he never lies. He lies sometimes , just like everyone else. Now, if he said 'This sentence is a lie', that would be a paradox. Indeed there is no paradox. The definition of a paradox implies that something is both true and false. There is a big mistake in the quite commonly accepted explanation from above: "if he was lying then he would be telling the truth". If someone lies, then he's NOT telling the truth, because he's lying. If he's lying when making this statement, the definition of lying implies that the statement itself is a lie, meaning in this case that he's not always lying. If he's telling the truth when saying he always lies, then that statement is also a lie, because he isn't always lying, he just told the truth. Actually, it doesn't matter if he's lying or telling the truth because either way this statement is a lie so it can never be true. Hence it's not a paradox. (For the statement to be true it can never be spoken out loud. Because when you tell someone you always lie, either you have to tell the truth about that which makes your statement false again or you lie about always lying, which again makes this statement a lie) .
Paradox If a man says, "I always lie", then the moment before he said it, it could have been either true or false that he always lies. If the man had ever told the truth, at any time in his life prior to making this statement, then the statement is simply false, and he is lying. But consider what happens if the statement was true prior to him saying so. If every word ever spoken by this man, prior to making that statement, was a lie, then it would have been accurate for someone else to say, about him, "he always lies". However, the moment he said it himself, he has told the truth , for once in his life, So, at first analysis, the statement is true . However, if the statement is true, then his "perfect record" of lying is no longer intact, i.e., it is no longer true that he "always lies", making the statement false the moment it is uttered. So far, that is in agreement with those who claim there is no paradox. However, those claims fail to carry this scenario all the way out. You see, if the statement is false, as we have just established, then the man's "perfect record" of lying is now intact once again. And it is true that he "always lies", making the statement true . But if the statement is true, then it is no longer true that he always lies, and therefore the statement is false . But if the statement is false then it is again true that he always lies, and so the statement is true . And on and on and on. That is why this is a paradox (if the statement was true before he said it). If it is true, it is false; and if it is false, it is true. Simply being true makes it false. Simply being false makes it true. So it is true and false at the same time. I think someone said that was the very definition of a paradox. So to summarize, if the man had ever told the truth prior to making this statement, then this statement is simply false. However, if he had never told the truth prior to making this statement, then the statement is, in fact, a paradox. (MORE)
