Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!timeinc!phri!pesnta!amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Is self-consistency just another dogma? Message-ID: <229@ubvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 14:27:54 EDT Article-I.D.: ubvax.229 Posted: Mon Jun 24 14:27:54 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 04:10:09 EDT References: <301@ihlpm.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, CA Lines: 29 In article <301@ihlpm.UUCP>, cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov) writes: > -- > 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. Moral philosophy is in a time of big changes, where a lot of old Kantian rational dogma is getting thrown out and being replaced by Aristotle brought up-to-date. Most Kantian-type philosophers don't even think self-contradiction is possible. But Aristotle and modern writers in moral philosophy and rational choice theory discuss the problem of *akrasia*, or weakness of will, a lot. Jon Elster's *Ulysses and the Sirens* comes up with lots of times when one's own self-contradictoryness should be taken-into-account in decisions. There's also some discussion of the lack of a problem in self-contradiction in Bernard Williams' book, *Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy*. Many people who contradict themselves are more adaptable, too. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw