>[!abstract] >A logical paradox, as defined by [[Ramsey, 1925|Ramsey (1925)]], refers to a self-referential or structural contradiction that arises within formal logical systems, distinct from merely linguistic or [[Semantic paradox|semantic]] puzzles. Logical paradoxes expose inconsistencies in the rules or assumptions of logic itself, such as [[Russell’s paradox]], which challenges the foundations of set theory. For Ramsey, these paradoxes are "genuine", not the product of language misuse, because they reveal flaws in the logical framework’s self-application.. >[!quote] >Group A consists of contradictions, which, were no provision made against them, would occur in a logical or mathematical system itself. They involve only logical or mathematical terms such as class and number, and show that there must be something wrong with our logic or mathematics. But the contradictions of Group B are not purely logical, and cannot be stated in logical terms alone, for they all contain some reference to thought, language, or symbolism, which are not formal but empirical terms ([[Ramsey, 1925]]). >[!related] >- **North** (upstream): — >- **West** (similar): — >- **East** (different): [[Semantic paradox]] >- **South** (downstream): —