[MD] For Bo

[david buchanan]

Ian said:
...Godel is not irrelevant to explaining why moral philosophies can never be (logically) complete and consistent.

dmb says:
Man, that just kills me. Only a philosophical tyrant could make as assertion like that. You'd have to be a hyper-rationalist and even more insane than Hegel. Logic itself is not logically complete and consistent, let alone any moral philosophy. 

Exploring the possibilities and limits of intellect is one of the central points of the MOQ, no? And doesn't that exploration make these kinds of assertions seem thoroughly implausible? Even ridiculous? I think so.




>> 
>> Platt:
>> Exactly. Or any other philosophies for that matter.
>> 
>> Ron:
>> Are you agreeing that no philosophy can be logically complete and
>> consistent?
> 
> Yes -- the key word being "complete."
> 
>> or are you agreeing simply based on the fact that the theorem applies
>> to philosophy (which it does not). It only applies to philosophy in that
>> it 
>> discredits it's axiomatic logical assumptions as incomplete.
> 
> The theorem applies to any logical, i.e., intelligible system including 
> philosophy.
> 
>> Godels theorem supports Pirsigs position that analytic is only one of
>> many ways to view reality, that SOM is not intellect but an intellectual
>> method.
>> 
>> That value is more empirical than logic.
> 
> The MOQ uses logic to make the case that logic is not all there is. 
> 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/

_________________________________________________________________
Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live Messenger.  Find out how.
http://www.windowslive.com/explore/messenger?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_yahoo_082008