Still looking Ron, for a copy I can post publicly ...
But here is a key quote from the conclusion. "The future for moral debate ... has to be concerned with the insurmountable dichotomy between complete and consistent moral systems. As we can no longer expect a unique answer to every situation, we have to decide which is more valuable." (Tom Glendinning, 2008) Ian Ron: which is an MoQ statement if I ever heard one. Tom seems to be saying the same thing as I am. Godels theorem supports Pirsigs rejection of axiomatic deduction in lieu of the observance of value relationships. Ian prev: > 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. Platt: Exactly. Or any other philosophies for that matter. Ron: Are you agreeing that no philosophy can be logically complete and consistent? 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. 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. 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/
