[MD] For Bo

[david buchanan]

Dearest darling Ian:

Take another look. The tyrant is the guy who says there is a logically complete and consistent moral system. I have no idea who ever said such a thing. I'm attacking that assertion, not you or Godel or anybody that disputes it. You, on the other hand, have answered a fictional personal attack with an actual one. If I were to engage in a personal attack on you at this point, I'd say you're not a very careful reader. Also, you don't live up to your own standards with respect to personal attacks....

Ian had said:
> Hi DMB, you make the same tyrannical point yourself ...
> 
> "Logic itself is not logically complete and consistent, let alone any
> moral philosophy." As you say.
> 
> In fact, I made a much weaker assertion of "not irrelevant", no more.
> BTW quit with the personal attacks.
> 
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> 
> On 8/22/08, david buchanan  wrote:
>>
>> 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.


_________________________________________________________________
Be the filmmaker you always wanted to be—learn how to burn a DVD with Windows®.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588797/direct/01/