Riff,
You ask where you got:
>
> "Any formal system of logic MAY be either complete OR consistent, but NOT
> BOTH."
Not sure. It doesn't sound like a logician's comment, more like someone who
thought formal logic a blind alley or waste of time. Actually it reminds me
of some things Iris Murdoch says in Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals where
she's talking about Hegel. She says (I haven't read Hegel and I'm working
from memory on Murdoch just now, so take care) that Hegel pursued
consistency at the expense of the real world (like what you were saying).
But not because the world is inconsistent, I think - just because one can
be too intent on rationalising everything, and mistakenly discard the bits
that don't fit. Murdoch want's us to cherish those bits that don't fit,
partly because they might turn out to be the key to the whole problem, and
partly because what they don't fit with, in this case, is something she
isn't very sympathetic to anyway. The bit's that don't fit into the main
direction of 20th century philosophy, for Murdoch, are the stuff of ordinary
experience: values, morality, art (which can include technology), pursuing
The Good. And that means, for her, that the consistency that's been
acheived is a "dry" and pointless one. She's marching down the same track
with Prisig, I'd say.
If you're interested, there's a paper on Murdoch under my non-elephant name
at an internet Journal, this edition just published, tail-end paper. Go to:
> Volume 4 of Minerva - An Internet
> Journal of Philosophy, which features your paper, is now online at
> http://www.ul.ie/~philos/vol4/index.html
All the best,
Elephant, P.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:51 BST