[MD] For Bo

[Ian Glendinning]

The point is many citations of Godel may indeed be abuses, but Godel
is not irrelevant to explaining why moral philosophies can never be
(logically) complete and consistent.
Ian

On 8/22/08, Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, Ron, SA,
>
> Godel's argument concerns any formal system of logic (not just
> mathematics per se) ... but it doesn't change your point, since the
> argument was part of the debate about whether mathematics and logic
> resolve to the same thing.
>
> My son's recent dissertation was specifically on the subject of
> Godel's incompleteness and/or inconsistency in relation to systems of
> moral philosophy. Let me see if I can dig you out a copy ...
>
> Ian
>
> On 8/22/08, Ron Kulp <RKulp at ebwalshinc.com> wrote:
> > Ron:
> > The fallacy, SA, is using a mathematical theorem to support
> > a metaphysical understanding. It supposes a cap on knowledge
> > and intellect when it is only a rarely used and one of many,
> > methods of reasoning.
> >
> >
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >
>