A tree, a prime number and off to the races at Axiom 2
January 14th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: A Tree, A Prime Number and Axiom 2 :: Agnostic Predication :: Root of ‘Being’ and the be-ing of root :: Agnostic Predication in Constructions not Explicitly Complemented
Cologne 09-Jan-2007
Joseph Polanik schrieb Wed, 09 Jan 2008 06:34:01 -0500:
> A Tree, A Prime Number and Axiom 2
>
> >ME: Kant himself provides an example of a sentence in which ‘is’ alone
> >is a predicate,
>
> JP: Would you provide a cite to the passage in which Kant says that ‘is’
> alone is a predicate?
ME: “Gott ist.” in the context of being as the “existential predicate” as
distinct from “real predicates” which say WHAT something is in its CONCEPT,
or Aristtotle’s _to ti estin_ translated to the environment of subjectivist
metaphysics, which Kant consummated..
>
> JP: 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”.
>
> JP: 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.
ME: Obviously you are confusing two different things. I am using “absolute”
in the sense of “absolute signification” as in the OED.
> JP: 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?
ME: I am not married to the term “absolute” as used by the OED. If you like,
you can call this simplest usage of ‘to be’ its signification plain and
simple, synonymous with ‘to exist’ in everyday language (philosophical usage
may then make a distinction between these two terms). If you want to “speak
with *agnostic* significance” when proclaiming “I am” in your CPI, then how
on earth could you ever claim “I *know* that I am” in the first part of this
so-called CPI if now, as you profess, you don’t know, i.e. claim to be
“agnostic”?
>
>
> >ME: and there are infinitely many others, such as ‘The prison camp is.’
> >meaning ‘The prison camp exists.’
>
> JP: interesting, you say ‘the tree is’ means ‘the tree exists’; but, that
> there is no implicit complement involved.
ME: Yep. That’s the distinction between existence and essence.
>
> JP: 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#…
>
ME: Oh no! Now we’re off to the races at Axiom 2 after Axiom 0 has already
run itself into the ground.
Indeed, I “wouldn’t want to say that a tree exists in the same sense that a
number exists”. Why? Because being — i.e. the little, inconspicuous words
‘is’, ‘am’ etc. without which we cannot get by from the very start — has
various meanings: _to on legetai pollachoos_. The heartland of philosophy
since its inception has been a questioning of the different meanings being
can have.
For a super rationalist, you’re not very logical.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred (c)_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
