Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihlpm!cher
From: cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Is self-consistency just another dogma?
Message-ID: <301@ihlpm.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Jun-85 07:39:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpm.301
Posted: Thu Jun 20 07:39:23 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Jun-85 00:39:03 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 22

--
In my previous article about self-consistency as common denominator
for evaluation of morals (which undoubtedly all of you memorized), 
I was putting such a high value on that self-consistency that
it might appear to be yet another sacred cow that it's proponent
(myself) fails to acknowledge.

I found that thought to be a little disturbing cloud in
otherwise complete, harmonious, most self-consistently 
correct, and otherwise blue sky of my world outlook.

The main problem is that all views of morals that I am aware of
treat self-contradictions as undesirable pests and try to
resolve and rationalize them out.
They don't have to. Self-contradiction can be declared a virtue.
Of course, that would invite some problems.

I guess, I would be interested to hear what others think about it:
was that possibility explored by any big-name people,
did such philosophy ever exist, comments, etc.
			Mike Cherepov
Oh, if only babbling could cure diarrhea!