> 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?
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/
