Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century

Next message: Dave Zachariah: "Re: [OPE] How to read Capital"
Previous message: dogangoecmen@aol.com: "Re: [OPE] How to read Capital"
In reply to: dogangoecmen@aol.com: "Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"
Next in thread: dogangoecmen@aol.com: "Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"
Reply: dogangoecmen@aol.com: "Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

davez@kth.se

dogangoecmen@aol.com wrote:
> All logical systems must be able to be formalised. Otherwise they are 
> not complete.

That is why I'd like to see the formalisation of 'dialectical logic'. It 
must have a formal language and some axioms and rules of inference. I 
can find references to the construction of propositional logic or set 
theory, but I am unable to find something equivalent for 'dialectical 
logic'. Perhaps you have a reference. Jerry wrote that it cannot be 
reduced to formal logic.

//Dave Z
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope