[FOM] Profound Flexibility

[Arnon Avron]

> As an illustration of the profound flexibility of f.o.m., I call attention
> to the recent Avron/Slater/Holmes (and others) thread. 

I would like again to clarify that I've got into this debate only because
Slater has mentioned my name as someone who shares his views (God forbids, I 
would have said had I believed in God), and I had to protect my good name
(assuming that I have one). I had stated it clearly that I  dont attach
much importance to the question what are the Natural numbers (unlike the
question what are the real numbers, if they exist at all, whatever this
last question means). I do like von Neumann's answer, but I would not
mind other suggestions (or no answer at all).


  But there was one factor in Slater's postings to which I strongly 
object: the  "grammatical" criterion he invokes for rejecting parts of
Mathematics. Well, it turns out that the only criterion for correct
application of this criterion is Slater's interest. Now I am afraid  that 
Slater and other people who come from similar intellectual environment (like
Buckner) see nothing wrong with this. The only question is: why are they 
bothering the people on this list who are really interested in the foundations 
of MATHEMATICS???

Arnon Avron