Is it valid to think of a constitution or law in general as an axiomatic system? Because what they do is actually stating some rules one-by-one which we just accept. This means we accept also all implications from these rules. Is it correct way of thinking?

If it is not completely so, what makes the law different from any axiomatic system?


Legal principles are axiomatic in the sense that they provide a rational framework... But they aren’t nearly precise enough to provide unambiguous resolution to specific legal arguments, and are maybe more effectively like political manifestos than axiomatic tableaux.

That said all this is pretty complex at the linguistic level already. Principles in physics and science were historically called laws, after tables of religious doxa; however this terminology seems less tenable today and you will find people like Longo contesting it (i.e. suggesting that laws are not a great analogy to physical principles.)


‎Gödel thought so. There's a famous story that at his citizenship hearing he was about to explain to the examiner that the Constitution would allow for a dictatorship. Fortunately ‎Gödel's friends Einstein and Morgenstern got him to put a sock in it.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.