Abstract

The author argues that the primary lesson of the so-Called logical and semantical paradoxes is that certain entities do not exist, Entities of which we mistakenly but firmly believe that they must exist. In particular, Russell's paradox teaches us that there is no such thing as the property which every property has if and only if it does not have itself. Why should anyone think that such a property must exist and, Hence, Conceive of russell's argument as a paradox rather than a proof for the nonexistence of this property? the author traces this conviction to an uncritical acceptance of the so-Called principle of property abstraction and claims that this principle is false. It is simply not true, As one widely assumes, That propositional forms represent (complex) properties. Then it is argued, On independent grounds, That there are no complex properties, But only complex states of affairs