Heidegger

Cologne 16-Dec-2007

Joseph Polanik schrieb Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:03:33 -0500:

> Axiom 0: The Relationship between Axiom and Translation
>
> Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >ME: I have not argued against your Axiom 0 by providing “speculations
> >concerning the meaning of ‘being’” nor “the linguistic history of the
> >word chosen for the root predicate”.
>
> JP: are you saying that you are now arguing against Axiom 0 by some means
> other than by providing “speculations concerning the meaning of ‘being’”
> nor “the linguistic history of the word chosen for the root predicate”?
>
> since you’ve previously indicated that you considered Axiom 0 true but
> trivial, this would be an important point to clarify.

ME: I have argued against your Axiom 0 by making the simple observation
that, for all that is, it can be said that it is. Your Axiom 0 is therefore
void because it already posits the predicate that it pretends not to posit.

> >I did, however, refer to the history of philosophy for which the
> >question concerning being was there from the start. For any
> >philosophical thinking today, that reference must provide a clue.
>
> JP: how?

ME: It is tedious to repeat myself. I have provided references to Plato,
Aristotle, Descartes, Hegel, Heidegger which can be followed up. Try looking
at the beginning of Aristotle’s Book Zeta, which refers to how “being is
said in many ways”. Your quest for a so-called “root predicate” is already
drenched with the history of philosophy, so it is futile to pretend that you
are making a fresh start. Learning Greek and reading Aristotle for ten years
would enable, perhaps, a fresh start. Without knowing Greek, one has fat
chance of doing any serious work at all in philosophy.

>
> JP: we’ve previously established that any attempt to use the linguistic
> history of the word used as the root predicate to help determine what
> the root predicate means implies a reversal of the usual relation
> between an axiomatic system and its translation into human language.

ME: You wouldn’t want to be saying that “an axiomatic system” is not a
“human language”, would you?

>
> JP: consequently, the linguistic history of the word used as the root
> predicate is irrelevant … *unless* you can explain why we are
> compelled to reverse the usual relation between an axiom and its
> translation. if the reversal is just for this case; then, why is this
> not merely a self-serving, ad hoc claim? if this reversal is supposed to
> be universal; then, you would have to explain to physicists that quarks
> actually reflect certain wavelengths of light but only if you name the
> three quark ‘flavors’ after the three primary colors. how would you do
> that?

ME: As I’ve said before, I’m not arguing against you by invoking “linguistic
history of the word used as the root predicate”, but, in case you haven’t
noticed, by pointing out that your Axiom 0 already, willy-nilly, invokes a
predicate, namely, ‘is’, for all that is. Moreover, I am saying that
attempting an axiomatic approach to ontology is untenable (i.e. ‘nuts’). It
was fine for Euclid and later mathematicians because there are immediate
intuitions/visualizations associated with each axiom, and these have to do
with very simple spatial and quantitative matters. Philosophy, however,
cannot take even ’space’ or ‘quantity’ for granted as self-evident
categories. For ontology there is no proposition that can be posited in
advance as a self-evident axiom which could then be used as a basis for
further deductions, which is your procedure. You have entered and made
yourself comfortably at home in the Cartesian trap which inaugurated the
mathematico-physical sciences that today claim to be the sole locus of
truth. That is today the thoughtlessly established, ‘majority’ position,
which is philosophically worthless in view of its thorough destruction by
the ablest thinkers over the past centuries. There are many philosophers
today, including yourself, who seek to emulate mathematical exactitude for
questions where it has no place. Descartes’ “Regulae” (in Latin) are a true
eye-opener for anyone with a mind’s eye.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Posted on Monday, December 24th, 2007 at 5:25 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback