Heidegger

Axiom 0 and its Translation: Agnostic Predication

Michael E wrote:

>Despite all your protestations in order to save your taxonomy of
>reality types, your starting-point — the so-called Axiom 0 “there is a
>predicate, P, such that, for any x that is, x is P.” — has always
>already predicated ‘is’ absolutely of ‘P’ and of ‘x’. You only coyly
>pretend that Axiom 0 does not predicate anything, i.e. say something
>about something, which is indeed a nonsensical pretence.

Axiom 0: (E P)(x)(Px) - there is a predicate, P, such that, for any x
that is, x is P.

Michael,

apparently, when I translate the symbolic ‘(E P)’ as ‘there is a
predicate, P’, you assume that ‘is’ is predicated *absolutely* of ‘P’.

again, ‘absolutely’ does not allude to an absolute or divine standpoint
from which something is said; but, you are probably right to suggest (by
using an adverb) that it would help to ask about the ’style’ of
predication.

I suggest that, for statements beginning with ‘there is’, the style of
predication is ‘agnostic’ — unless, of course, further information can
be implied from the context of the utterance.

consider the statement: there is only one even prime number.

in this sort of sentence, ‘there’ is usually considered a placeholding
pronoun; and, this sentence format is often called ’subjectless’. to
analyze the meaning of such sentences in relation to the theory of the
copula, one can remove the placeholder and change the word order so that
one gets:

only one even prime number is.

this sentence format is sometimes said to use the so-called ‘is of
existence’; but, I prefer to describe the style of predication as
‘agnostic’.

what do I mean by this?

well, as you know, for any x that is, x is not a member of the empty
set; and, therefore, is a reality of some sort. but, of *what* sort, you
may well ask. that is not said.

precisely.

‘only one even prime number is’ asserts that the number 2 is a reality
of some sort; but, is *agnostic* as to its reality type.

is there some doubt as to the reality type of the number 2? well, from
your studies in mathematics you surely know that, for over 2,000 years,
there has been a debate among mathematicians as to the reality type of
numbers and other mathematical objects. are they mere phenomenological
(ie conceptual) realities; or, do they reside in some platonic heaven of
ideal forms and perfect triangles and so on?

naturally, I take no position as to which side is correct, if either;
and, thus, when I assert ‘there is only one even prime number’ I do so
agnostically.

Joe

–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
 http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

Posted on Saturday, January 5th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback