Monday, September 18, 2006
Hans Hoppe
Democracy: The God that Failed (archive at LRC, mises.org)
Introduction to Democracy, The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
His website. wiki.
Google Books: Democracy the God that Failed: The Economics ...
The Economics and Ethics of Private Property ...
A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism ...
Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Theory and History
An Interview With Hans-Herman Hoppe
More links:
Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Defying Leviathan Samizdata.net
HANS-HERMANN HOPPE ON WAR, TERRORISM, AND THE WORLD STATE
Edit. Interview with Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Does anything follow from a contradiction?
I suspect that logically, this does not hold, and only works because of a certain definition of implication within modern/symbolic logic is adopted. If we set up the accepted truth table for material implication:
p q p-->q
T T T
T F F
F F T
F T T
(for more on material implication)
we see that in the case of a & ~a --> b, while a & ~a is F, regardless of whether b is T or F, the implication is T.
(This is already covered in Paedo Socrates' post, but I'm typing out the justification for my own reflection and to keep it simple for the reader.)
Now if this statement is taken rather to be a predicator of human behavior or "psychology," perhaps there is some truth to it. That is to say, if someone consciously rejects the principle of non-contradiction and "reasons" accordingly, then it he will accept as true whatever he wants to accept as true, because he is no longer guided by logic. Truth is arbitrarily determined by the subject, and has no relation to reality.
So the next question would then be: is material implication "strong" enough to explain both logical and real necessity? Or is it merely a devised rule of "calculating" or "reasoning" which does not help us think logically but impedes us from doing so?
p q p-->q
T T T
T F F
F F T
F T T
(for more on material implication)
we see that in the case of a & ~a --> b, while a & ~a is F, regardless of whether b is T or F, the implication is T.
(This is already covered in Paedo Socrates' post, but I'm typing out the justification for my own reflection and to keep it simple for the reader.)
Now if this statement is taken rather to be a predicator of human behavior or "psychology," perhaps there is some truth to it. That is to say, if someone consciously rejects the principle of non-contradiction and "reasons" accordingly, then it he will accept as true whatever he wants to accept as true, because he is no longer guided by logic. Truth is arbitrarily determined by the subject, and has no relation to reality.
So the next question would then be: is material implication "strong" enough to explain both logical and real necessity? Or is it merely a devised rule of "calculating" or "reasoning" which does not help us think logically but impedes us from doing so?
Giovanni Reale
author of The Concept of First Philosophy and the Unity of the Metaphysics of Aristotle
(another book taking on the developmental view of Aristotle's Metaphysics)
info page
bio and links (in Italian)
Academia Verlag
Italian wiki
Deuteros Plous
A review of his Toward a New Interpretation of Plato
Janet Smith's review of his volume on Plato and Aristotle
Christopher Gill's report on a colloquium on the dialogues of Plato
(another book taking on the developmental view of Aristotle's Metaphysics)
info page
bio and links (in Italian)
Academia Verlag
Italian wiki
Deuteros Plous
A review of his Toward a New Interpretation of Plato
Janet Smith's review of his volume on Plato and Aristotle
Christopher Gill's report on a colloquium on the dialogues of Plato
Behe speaking on Thursday, 21 September
I received this email today:
I was thinking it would be later in the semester, my copy of his revised edition of Darwin's Black Box has not arrived yet. Ah well, maybe he'll be willing to sign a "book plate." Hrm, I suppose on Wednesday I can print out some objections and read them over.
In the meantime, questions to keep in mind:
(1) Is it possible to show that something has no function? One can show that it does not have a certain function (for example, if a protein "normally" catalyzes a certain reaction, but one alters the protein and the reaction is no longer catalyzed, one would suspect that the protein no longer is able to carry out that function). But can one show that it has no function whatsoever? Perhaps, if one knows the structure and constituents of the protein.
(2) On the other hand, even if it can be shown that a protein missing certain amino acids has some sort of function what is the effect of this protein on that of which it is a part? Does the whole still thrive like it did before?
(3) Then there is the developmental question--if we are talking about complex living things and not simple living things (comprised of a single cell), what is the impact of such a change on the living thing as a whole? And how does a change in protein lead to a macroscopic change? (What is the development pathway?)
I should ask him about structuralism...
On THURSDAY
September 21at 7pm
in the Robsham Theatre
MICHAEL BEHE Prof. of biochemistry at Lehigh University and best-selling author of DARWIN'S BLACK BOX will lecture and lead a discussion on THE CASE AGAINST DARWIN (a plea for Freethinking in Biology). All faculty and students--especially true believers in the orthodox Darwinian paradigm--are urged to attend and join in an open, free discussion (the sort of discussion that rarely takes place on this topic). Hoping to see you there.
Ronald K Tacelli sj
Boston College Philosophy Association
I was thinking it would be later in the semester, my copy of his revised edition of Darwin's Black Box has not arrived yet. Ah well, maybe he'll be willing to sign a "book plate." Hrm, I suppose on Wednesday I can print out some objections and read them over.
In the meantime, questions to keep in mind:
(1) Is it possible to show that something has no function? One can show that it does not have a certain function (for example, if a protein "normally" catalyzes a certain reaction, but one alters the protein and the reaction is no longer catalyzed, one would suspect that the protein no longer is able to carry out that function). But can one show that it has no function whatsoever? Perhaps, if one knows the structure and constituents of the protein.
(2) On the other hand, even if it can be shown that a protein missing certain amino acids has some sort of function what is the effect of this protein on that of which it is a part? Does the whole still thrive like it did before?
(3) Then there is the developmental question--if we are talking about complex living things and not simple living things (comprised of a single cell), what is the impact of such a change on the living thing as a whole? And how does a change in protein lead to a macroscopic change? (What is the development pathway?)
I should ask him about structuralism...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)