judicial tyranny

Ian Murray seamus2001 at home.com
Thu May 17 12:37:43 PDT 2001


----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 11:45 AM Subject: Re: judicial tyranny


>
>
> >>> sokol at jhu.edu 05/17/01 02:12PM >>>
> At 01:23 PM 5/17/01 -0400, Charles wrote:
> >CB: Do you mean that all formal logics like legal reasoning or
mathematics
> develop inherent paradoxes and can't be completely consistent with
respect
> to their fundamental principle of non-contradiction ?
> >
>
> Wasn't that Goedel?
>
> (((((((
>
> CB: I'd credit Hegel with emphasizing it before that. Formal
logic's first principle is non-contradiction. Dialectical logic's first principle is contradiction. =============== Yes, but that was in the context of non-compossibility of multiple claims being jointly true; not just binary or 2-valued logic within the formation of a predicate calculus. It was Marx' total genius in taking this and mapping social causation under capitalism that has given Smithian's fits ever since. The paradox of dialectics is that it is really about multivariate analysis for which non-bivalent logics are a must. The problems can't really be squeezed into the subject predicate forms of every day grammar. Leibniz and Hegel, while they got some of their stuff from Hindu-Buddhist models of 3-valued logics and the quadrilemmas of negation, were still firmly ensconced in the Aristotelian paradigm. Leibniz started the breakout with his quest for a rigorous combinatorics but Hegel, kinda scornful of the rigors of formalism, was in a certain sense a step backwards from L. With Boole, Frege, Euler etc. the stuff really took off.

Ian

Ian



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list