ravi wrote:
>
> At around 5/8/06 10:46 am, Carrol Cox wrote:
> >
> > This is so fucking silly. As a sovereign state Iran has the same
> > 'inalienable' right to build all the nuclear weapons it wants to build,
> > the same right that Israel, Pakistan, the U.S., France, India, ...
> >
>
> Carrol,
>
> how silly of you. You are using first-order logic. You really should be
> using higher-order logic, where things look very different. For
> instance, like in Russell's theory of types, you cannot lump in such
> inherently righteous type nations like the U.S.A, Israel and India with
> rogue type nations like Iran and Pakistan. What you say about the latter
> just does not apply to the former set, since they (the former) are
> higher-order entities.
Ah yes. But then I have an important question for you. Does Russell's theory of types apply to the theory of types? This requires one of those famous approaches which recognizes all the nuances. If the Theory of Types applies to the Theory of Types, then obviously (I think) the Theory of Types does not apply to the Theory of Types ... or I guess. Am I beginning to ignore the nuances of the case?
Carrol
>
> --ravi
>
> --
> Support something better than yourself: ;-)
> PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
> GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
> If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk