Yablo ’ s paradox non-circular ?

Is there a non-circular liar paradox? If so, what is it? Stephen Yablo (1985, 1993) claims to have specified a particular example, Yablo’s paradox as it is now called. Yablo’s example, however, has been challenged. In particular, Graham Priest (1997) has argued that Yablo’s paradox, though genuinely paradoxical, is not non-circular; and Priest’s challenge applies across the board to any other allegedly non-circular Yabloesque paradox.1 As is often the case in philosophy, challenges breed challenges. The latest challenge comes from Roy Sorensen (1998), who has defended Yablo’s claim of non-circularity in the face of Priest’s objection. Evidently, Sorensen’s defence has been thought by many to be successful; there has been little discussion, and no challenges, thereafter. In this paper I break the silence. My aim is to show that Sorensen’s defence fails to address Priest’s basic point; none of Sorensen’s replies provides any reason for thinking that, contrary to Priest’s challenge, Yablo’s paradox is noncircular. To make matters clear I shall present a new version of Priest’s argument, a version which, I hope, expresses Priest’s basic point in a clearer way than