We both have a sense for what is rational (and what is not), even if we lack a formal definition of rationality. Mathematics is much larger than formal language, which is what Gödel proved. There are certainly

If, as you say, no one understands the true or right definition of "rationality," then it is strange for you to refer to my position as "not very rational." But there is an important

I suppose you could say that I'm interested in philosophy as the handmaid of theology. Since my answers to your questions about truth and human nature are principally theological, they might not interest

It's interesting that you like both Rescher and Rorty, given Rescher's rather scathing view of Rorty. While I like Rescher quite a bit, Rorty doesn't interest me.

I don't know why my counterexample would imply that natural languages and formal languages are the same? I said some philosophers might argue that consistency is all we can expect from any discipline.

I am interested in motives. I think the search for truth (including moral-aesthetic truth) should be a primary motive. Can we expect anything beyond internal consistency from philosophy? If not, then the

The issue with classical utilitarianism is the principle that everyone is worth just one, interchangeable unit in the moral calculus. This view shatters on the realization of what Adam Smith called the

Let me use an example from my own field. The example is also well-known among philosophers, so it has the advantage of not seeming obscure. Gödel proved that the set of mathematical proofs is a proper

'Furthermore, it only claims the “word of God” is infallible, but no where does it state what is and isn’t the “word of God”.' Jesus is the Word. It states this at the beginning of the Gospel of John.

Can't you preserve absolute truth alongside a coherence theory? In other words, the realization that human understanding is often partial (which is obvious to most people) need not militate against absolute

I don't know if the Pope really said this. If he did, I feel no pressure (as a Roman Catholic) to accept his view, since there is no indication he invoked Papal infallibility. It's not a question of doctrine,

Please forgive the slightly tangential comment. Voltaire's understanding of Leibniz is particularly inept. The facile optimism of Dr. Pangloss completely misses the mark. Leibniz' uses the term "best

Note: The book will be published under the pseudonym Krim Kandelman.

"If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the

In my view, classical utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill, Sidgwick/ Smart) shatters on the realization of what Adam Smith called the "vicarious affects" (e.g., sympathy). While the moral calculus