Curry’s Paradox. A new Argument for Trivialism

In dialetheism some sentences, called dialetheias, are both true and false. A crucial problem of this logical theory is that of avoiding trivialism, i.e. the consequence that all sentences are dialetheias. Priest tries to avoid trivialism by rejecting some principles of classical logic. In the present paper we formulate a new version of Curry's paradox and argue that trivialism follows even from logical principles that are dialetheistically correct. To the purpose we will use a notion of naïve deducibility, defended by Priest in his discussion of Gödel’s theorem.