Re: Logic (was Re: Magick: The Roots of Athiesm)

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gremlin) wrote:

>The resolution of Curry's paradox is a content[i]ous issue because
>nontrivial resolutions (such as disallowing X directly) are difficult
>and not intuitive.

It's not clear exactly why a "resolution" of antinomies like Curry's 
paradox is needed. Does the existence of antinomies cast doubt on the 
the validity of logical reasoning? No it doesn't, and here's why:

Assume that the existence of antinomies casts doubt on the validity of 
logical reasoning. But the conclusion (doubtful validity of logical 
reasoning) must follow from the assumption by logical reasoning, must it 
not? Therefore, if logical reasoning is invalid, the conclusion cannot 
validly be drawn.

The same basic proof technique can be used to show that logical 
reasoning is a) axiom-free and b) not dependent on the validity of any 
rules of logical inference.