Antinomies outside semantically closed languages: A critique of
Tarski’s analysis of the liar antinomy"
analysis of the liar antinomy comes to the conclusion: The liar can be
constructed in a language if, and only if, this language is
semantically closed. My main point is to show that Tarski’s
conclusion is false and that his analysis is aporetic. The conclusion
is false because the liar can be constructed in languages that are not
semantically closed; the analysis is aporetic because there is no
language in which the analysis can be expressed consistently.