Dear NvT,
This is in response to the reply to my first letter in response to Dave 's
"paradox".

As I see it, there are two main issues:
(1) The logical status of the alleged paradox;
(2) The relevance of such a paradox to nonviolence theory.

In regard to issue (1), your paradox fails because the predicate "Not
possible to know (X)" is simply too weak to generate a contradiction when
applied to itself.  A contradiction is what makes a paradox "go".  Without a
contradiction there is no motivation to continue the logical cycle, hence no
paradox.  Not every self-referring statement is paradoxical.

The theory of truth which you are proposing is going to be very difficult to
defend.  You mention tautologies as "necessarily true", hence true in an
absolute sense, but what about factual statements of the kind "Brisbane is
north of Sydney"?  What probability of truth do you assign this? Only
99.99999999999% or what?  To be consistent you are going to have to follow
Engels and deny the absolute truth of tautologies as well.  This is not a
"scientific attitude to truth", but a retreat into the meta-physical jungle. 
"Classical logic" is not so easily disposed of.

You ask if I can suggest wording which would make your meaning clearer.  I
propose "All beliefs are doubtable".  Applying self-reference yields, "It is
doubtable that all beliefs are doubtable", to which the correct response is
"OK, so what?" or even "Definitely".  Applying further self-reference yields
an infinity of statements starting with "It is doubtable that it is doubtable
that all beliefs are doubtable".  None of these statements is inconsistent
with any of the others, so clearly there is no paradox even with this
stronger form.

But what are we doing here?  Are we discovering paradoxes, or trying to
invent them?  Which brings me to issue (2).  I really can't see how this sort
of paradox-chopping contributes anything to nonviolence theory.

I think you have been led into this by a confusion between a belief and a
methodological principle.  Being skeptical about one's own beliefs (or those
of others) is something that one does because one feels that this attitude
will lead to the greater good in the long run.  The justification for doing
so is not logical, but pragmatic and experimental.  Those who hold the
opposite principle can justify themselves in the same way.  As you say,
logical argument cannot be expected to win anybody to Nonviolent Struggle. 
So the conflict between these principles is something which is going to be
worked out in practice, possibly over a very long time scale.  Nonviolence
will only have succeeded when its opponents themselves become convinced that
it is the best course of action.  After all, we can't exterminate them!
Brian Currie


Dear Brian,
Thanks for your excellent reply.

After reading your latest response I almost wish I hadn't offered my previous
reply for publication. I found your recent letter very clear and I agree with
most of it.  I am now convinced it is not a paradox and so the stuff about
Godel was probably so much waffle.  It still feels "paradox-like".  I still
think that methodological principles are just a particular kind of belief.

I guess one thing I wanted readers to understand was that we can't afford to
be dogmatic about nonviolence, but, of course, I refuse to be dogmatic about
that.  I suspect there are many who would be happy to take the axiom of doubt
to apply to everything but itself.  Your showing that applying it to itself
is not paradoxical, supports my case even better, I suppose.

Yes, such an obvious solution, to some!  To make the world a nonviolent
place, kill all the violent people!
Dave Keenan