A Tree, A Prime Number and Axiom 2
January 9th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: A tree, a prime number and off to the races at Axiom 2 :: Agnostic Predication :: Root of ‘Being’ and the be-ing of root :: Agnostic Predication in Constructions not Explicitly Complemented
A Tree, A Prime Number and Axiom 2
>ME: Kant himself provides an example of a sentence in which ‘is’ alone
>is a predicate,
Would you provide a cite to the passage in which Kant says that ‘is’
alone is a predicate?
or, are you merely trying to say that Kant discussed sentences where
‘is’ is not explicitly complemented?
>ME: The OED speaks with regard to the verb ‘to be’ of an “absolute
>signification”, i.e. with regard to its semantics as in e.g. ‘The tree
>is.’ meaning ‘The tree exists’. For neither sentence is there an
>”implicit complement” to be “uncovered”.
obviously, you hold fast to the idea that classifying the *syntactic*
form of a statement as ‘absolute’ (an archaic, 19th century designation)
transfers a quality of ‘absolute significance’ to the semantic analysis
of meaning.
does that mean that when you say ‘I am’ you speak with absolute
significance? when I say ‘I am’ I speak with agnostic significance. If
someone else said ‘I am’ how would we know whether he spoke with
absolute significance or agnostic significance?
>and there are infinitely many others, such as ‘The prison camp is.’
>meaning ‘The prison camp exists.’
interesting, you say ‘the tree is’ means ‘the tree exists’; but, that
there is no implicit complement involved.
not all realities have the same reality type (Axiom 2); so, when
speaking of any x that is, I know only that x is a reality of some sort.
but, when speaking of a specific ‘value’ of ‘x’, one may be able to say
more. I would say that ‘the tree is’ has the implicit complement ‘an
existential reality’. the english language allows you to say this with
the concise inflection ‘exists’.
similarly, ‘there is only one even prime number’ means ‘only one even
prime number is’ or ‘only one even prime number exists’.
however, you wouldn’t want to say that a tree exists in the same sense
that a number exists, would you?
Note: unless you answer ‘yes’ you’ve just conceeded Axiom 2: not every
reality has the same reality type. or, more schematically: not every
[your root predicate] has the same [your root predicate]-type (or mode).
http://what-am-i.net/lor_foundation.htm#…
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
