Frostgage

But I can define plenty of positive integers in less than sixty letters - 'the third prime' uniquely defines the number five, for instance -, and there are only finite letter combinations with less than sixty letters yet there are infinite numbers, so some of those numbers must not be definable in less than sixty letters (the number I gave you for Christmas, for example). Coupled with the fact that positive integers are linearly ordered this implies that there has to be be a uniquely defined smallest member of the latter set and thus that the number has to exist despite the contradiction.

Not only that but the paradox generalises to all forms of definition: "the alphabetically first word in the English language not definable in under seventy letters" surely exists and yet that sentence defines it in under seventy letters.

And worst of all the sentence "the [most] [metaphysically fundamental] [concept] [not] [definable in terms of] [less than] [eight] [more] [metaphysically fundamental] [concepts]" defines a concept in terms of less than eight more metaphysically fundamental concepts, namely [more/most], [metaphysically fundamental], [concept], [not], [definable in terms of], [less than], and [eight].

Intuitive definability is broken 

I think this single meme format could actually express a lot of philosophy.

[a statement unable to be defined within the formal system it refers to]

Tarski: "Is this truth?"