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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/ > > > 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/
