Assumptions About Predicating Nothingness
April 27th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Unacknowleged Consequences :: Assumptions About Predicating Nothingness :: Assumptions About Predicating Nothingness :: Predicating Nothingness vs Not Predicating Being
Assumptions About Predicating Nothingness
>>======================================================================
>>Clarification 3: The Ultimate Choice
>>======================================================================
>>naturally, [7] is not the finally use of modus tollens that you make.
>>you can combine [3] and [7]; although, since you aren’t allowed to
>>deduce a denial of facts (-E), you deduce -A1: it is possible to
>>attribute predicates to nothing.
>>but that conclusion, -A1, will still rest on {Assumption Set: [4],
>>[6]}.
>>so there is a choice to be made between:
>>C1: accepting A1 and rejecting at least one of {Assumption Set: [4],
>>[6]}
>>C2: accepting {Assumption Set: [4], [6]} and its conclusion -A1.
>>I’ve given my reasons for preferring A1 over -A1: A1 is assumed by
>>predicate logic and an analogous assumption is at the basis of
>>axiomatic set theory.
>>what is your rationale for preferring C2 on the basis of {Assumption
>>Set: [4], [6]} which have a consequence that undermines the very basis
>>of rational thought?
>As you can see, my modus tollens begins precisely with predicate logic
>(attributing predicates to me) and proceeds to show how that assumption
>must be negated.
I think we all understand that you have, to your own satisfaction, used
modus tollens to negate my premise A1: it is not possible to attribute
predicates to nothing.
what is less clear is whether you actually understand how modus tollens
operates. you *do* understand, do you not, that the truth of a
conclusion reached via modus tollens depends on the truth of the
assumptions made in the derivation of that conclusion?
and, while we’re at it, let’s try to be clear about what those
assumptions were.
where
P = ‘I am not nothing’ or ‘I exist’ [equivalent by your definitions]
Q = ‘I remain self-identical throughout all my perceptions’
you assumed:
P -> Q
literally, if I am not nothing then I remain self-identical throughout
all my perceptions; although, you’ve chosen to phrase this as Q is a
necessary condition of P.
you also assumed
-Q
from your two premises there follows:
-P
‘I do not exist’ or ‘I am nothing’
since this conclusion contradicts the conclusion I reached (’I am not
nothing’) based on the premise A1 (it is not possible to attribute
predicates to nothing), you negate that premise and conclude that it
*is* possible to attribute predicates to nothing.
are we agreed that this is what you have accomplished?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
