Edwina,
so, if we want both democracy and capitalism, we should support individual private enterprises, I agree. And for companies bigger than an individual co-operatives. Otherwise the business-owners cannot become majority.
I don´t think, that all knowledge is incomplete. Due to Goedel, as far
Helmut - No, I don't think that Godel's incompleteness theory has
anything to do with democracy. After all, if we take as a given, that
all knowledge is incomplete [and Peirce would be the first to say
this!], then, we'd have to question other historical forms of
governance - such as a h
Jon,
you wrote "except as...", yes, these exceptions are what I was talking about. I think, Goedel´s Incompleteness Theorem even is the justification for democracy: No king can have complete information about the system he governs, because he is part of it. Incomplete information is not-knowled
Helmut, List:
I am still having trouble following you here. Intuitionistic logic does not
have anything to do with belief or truth, except as a formal system for
drawing valid deductive inferences such that the conclusion is true as long
as the premisses are true. Its main difference from classica
Jon, List,
the fallacy of intuitionistic logic in my hypothesis is, that it first includes belief into the concept of truth, then sees, that belief is not two-valued, and then denies the law of the excluded middle for both. But the NOT-operator can only be applied for truth-problems, and so for
Helmut, Steven, List:
HR: For me it is not clear, what exactly is claimed to justify
intuitionistic logic.
What would it mean to *justify* intuitionistic logic? What kind of
reasoning would one use to do so? From my standpoint, it is "justified" by
not imposing excluded middle as if it were an e
