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/ 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/
