On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 17:33:57 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On 23 Jul 2006 11:23:17 -0700, "Jiri Lebl" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >> >Lester Zick wrote: >> >> Well this point is well taken: the tautological exhaustion of truth is >> >> an assumption. However the point I would make in this connection is >> >> whether there can be any alternative. In other words can there be an >> >> alternative to the tautological exhaustion of truth that is actually >> >> "not a tautology"? If so it would seem we nonetheless have the >> >> resulting tautology "tautology, not tautology" in order to deny the >> >> tautology which as far as I can tell denies the possibility of any >> >> alternatives to the tautology whether or not the exhaustion of truth >> >> in tautologies is an assumption. In other words whether or not the >> >> exhaustion of truth in tautologies is an assumption, there can be no >> >> mechanical alternative to tautologies. >> > >> >So the way we figure out the absolute truth of "the tautological >> >exhaustion of truth," the test appears to be "as far as [Lester Zick] >> >can tell." You will go far in logic. >> >> Well obviously further than you. > >One can easily go too far and end up contradicting oneself, as Zick has >done.