Re: virus: Rationality

Tim Rhodes (
Sun, 9 Mar 1997 21:45:28 -0800 (PST)

On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, David McFadzean wrote:

> The actual axioms are irrelevant to my point. I'm saying that if you
> believe the axioms are true, you will only believe the conclusion follows
> logically if you can't imagine the paradox being true. So all logical
> arguments are ultimately arguments from incredulity.

What if we make the first axiom: Paradoxes (paradoxi?) exist and are
real and valid.

How does that effect the resulting logic? And is there a parallel to this
in some philosophies?

-Prof. Tim