----- 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