Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Proving Natural Law

This post has 1,361 Replies | 16 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Mon, Jul 27 2009 4:37 PM

Thank your, AM, for the additional details. I have only read the wiki on this subject, but it looks potentially interesting.

The problem remains, however, that Korzybski (as you are representing him) is still trying to talk about his system as a new system of logic. It's just a novel way of classifying statements, and I think - if there is any validity in his theory - he would be doing his work a great disservice by pointing out "flaws" in propositional logic or purporting to create a new system of logic. He should call a spade a spade, or else people will simply discount him. His work loses nothing that way either.

In other words, I think you have a point but you're not explaining it in the most advantageous way. If you can accept that it's just a new (albeit possibly revolutionary) way of creating propositions in logic, we can have a much more fruitful discussion. Else people will just keep objecting that you can't change logic, etc.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 230
Points 5,620

The problem remains, however, that Korzybski (as you are representing him) is still trying to talk about his system as a new system of logic. It's just a novel way of classifying statements, and I think - if there is any validity in his theory - he would be doing his work a great disservice by pointing out "flaws" in propositional logic or purporting to create a new system of logic.

I think we are in general agreement. I had been misrepresenting Korzybski all the time. And misinterpreting his work. And oversimplifying things.

My point was similar to zefreak and Liburne. So I didn't have to bring up Korzybski to prove my point. But I did. It overcomplicated things.

I realized what I did had been a rationalization for persuading "moral subjectivism." I now know what I did will not convince anyone because they, too, will rationalize their moral apriorism.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 35 of 35 (1362 items) « First ... < Previous 31 32 33 34 35 | RSS