Exordium.
This article got true clever paradoxes which I like. It is exhibit fact about style of talk of Gaga gang, are being fake paradoxes, which are ugly and stupid same as Gaga gang too. By saying true paradoxes, I was able to defend dignity of true paradoxes, and to exhibit cool qualities of real paradoxes. Talk and posts of Gaga gang are stupid and ugly. True paradoxes are rare, clever and true.
I appreciate Plato's books, thus the fact like it is being exactly me which was able to crack a thousands years long riddle paradox, and it is very good like and deserved and stuff. I got a big pride about it, and thus no one be able to take it from me! It is being the one of my very few achievements which I got in my all life, and thus I decided to copyright it, by saying and claiming it on this site all the truth about it about the fact like it is all the way my stuff. It is now official, I being the one which was able to crack and to figure out the correct stuff about a philosophical riddle paradox of Aristotle, which is for thousands years was not clarified and had no correct answer or intel about it but now. And now due to me, I got the correct answer and intel about it. Now read the stuff below the talk about paradoxes overall, and about a certain paradoxes itself.
I recently was considering like I could try to write a book since I being thus much bored, and since I do appreciate slightly books. But then like in books I myself appreciate mostly fun and philosophical dialogues or monologues or just talk which I just like. And I ain't appreciate scenery description, story plot, actions of characters of books. Neither I care about characters and about their qualities and fate.
And just I've heard few paradoxes. The exact official definition of paradox seems like it is a certain stuff which is goes vs logic. Paradox is by no means a clumsy, ugly contradictions of words, alike did Gaga gang by saying obvious impossible lies, like back are being forth, or an obvious truth like em being bad h a c k e r s which are watch an ass of people, and then em h a c k watch the face of people too. And although it is opposites but it is an obvious truth facts about em bad h a c k e r s freaks, and it is neither subtle, neither clever, neither it is reveal any cool ideas to conceive it. Thus it is not a paradox but a blunt obvious fact of possibility of existence of opposites at the same time in reality as an ugly fact, or just as an obvious lie. And just all in all it is garbage. While apart from it exist a really cool and clever paradoxes. And among those cool and clever paradoxes which is among the most oldest too, is Aristotle's tortoise paradox.
The Aristotle's tortoise paradox say like:
"In racing, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead."
— as recounted by Aristotle, Physics.
In the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 meters, for example. Suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed, one faster than the other. After some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 meters, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say 2 meters. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then even more time to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles arrives somewhere the tortoise has been, he nevertheless has some distance to go before he can even reach the tortoise. As Aristotle noted, this argument is similar to the Dichotomy. It lacks, however, the apparent conclusion of motionlessness.
The stuff like Aristotle being really clever and yet got baffled in logic and got a tortoise paradox, and it was due to the fact like he just had stick to the narrow image of logic process about racing. He had stick just to the movement process from one spot to another spot only, he was considering just such process of racing. While in reality the racing process is not all being limited just to moving from one spot to another. The racing got a bigger image about all of it and much of factors and stuff exist and really count about racing. It is just got a lot of things which you need to consider and to include it and combine it into one stuff which is altogether compose a topic overall called racing. And Aristotle was not considering speed and time in a correct ways in relation to racing, which are crucial stuff about like every racing, and thus he got a tortoise paradox. And if he'd considered it all what I have said correctly, just all the stuff from which consist the racing, including speed and time stuff too like, and then like Aristotle would not got baffled and would not got paradox, but would got a correct coherent answer about the stuff like racing.
The tortoise paradox was baffling paradox for thousands and thousands of years all the way but today. Today is the date of 1st of October of 2021 year, and at this date I was able to figure out the paradox of Aristotle. And now actually I being the very first which is officially and Online Worldwide could crack and figure out the thousands years long riddle paradox of Aristotle.
I have found additional quality paradox which is among the most oldest and the most famous of all. And it's a paradox about C r r e t a n s which are liars. The C r r e t a n s paradox say:
Epimenides was a C r r e t a n who made one immortal statement: "All C r r e t a n s are liars."
I by now have read certain explanations of it which is actually seems being accepted as a correct answer, and it's quite lame really, since the explanation say like not all C r r e t a n s are liars, and Epimenides meant other stuff than what he said! Explanation say:
"Epimenides deep in his brain knew he is lying, and he have lied just about certain people once he said all C r r e t a n s are liars."
This is among the worst explanation I've heard really. It is completely ignores all the intel of the phrase, and bring misleading intentional lies out of nowhere which are mean complete opposite of what was said and what was needed to be analyzed in the phrase. Thus all such explanation did is just a complete ignore of intel of the paradox itself, and replaced it by their own lies which are not relevant to paradox at all, and in the end of it they just have said the answer about totally different stuff. And with it exist another explanation which is better really, and actually like all is better than previous explanation. Other explanation say:
"What Epimenides have said was meant just about certain limited timeline, about very definitive amount of time."
And as you can see, any kind of time limits or no time limits was never mentioned in the phrase. Thus you just may assume either it really meant just a certain limited amount of time, or it is meant all the time and always forever. And of course it's seems meant all the time forever, since otherwise he would say it, and a no time limits said seems meant all the time. And yet whatever he meant, it really is being arguable what exactly time was said in the phrase. Thus, after all, the time argument is possible to use as a winning argument. And yet I mean it is just a sly trick of usage of not 100 percent definitive phrase, and it is not actually bring any real correct answer intel about paradox itself, but just exploits a weak part of the phrase. And, this paradox actually can be expanded and said better, by another paradox which is famous too like. A man say:
"What I am saying now is a lie."
Thus, it is the paradox and just a stuff which is like impossible to figure out. It is mean I have said quality and cool paradoxes which are real and cool, and thus real clever paradoxes was defended by me, against stupid disgusting Gaga gang. And I've won as a quality and cool paradox teller.