Is it merely Trivially True?
November 23rd, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: Is it merely Trivially True? :: Is it merely Trivially True? :: Is it merely Trivially True? :: Is it merely Trivially True?
Axiom 0: Is it merely Trivially True?
Michael Eldred wrote:
>Joseph Polanik schrieb
>>perhaps you are claiming instead that Axiom 0 is false. if so, show us
>>how you prove that it is false.
>ME: Axiom 0 is trivial. As I said before (01 Nov 2007) “…a predicate
>is that which is said of a subject, the subject being a _hypokeimenon_
>about which something can be said. So a predicate presupposes the
>elementary structure of the _logos_ (proposition) investigated by
>Plato, namely, saying something about something, or predicating
>something AS something. In other words, any predicate presupposes
>[that] about which it is or can be said.”
since you have passed up the opportunity to allege that Axiom 0 is
false, I assume that, when you say ‘Axiom 0 is trivial’, you mean that
Axiom 0 is true but trivial.
such a claim invites the obvious rhetorical question: if you believe
that Axiom 0 is trivial, why have you contested it so strenously?
in another sense, the triviality that you see is a sign of high quality
workmanship (if I may say so myself). I consciously set out to construct
a useful axiom that said as little as possible without actually saying
nothing at all; and, I think I have succeeded. Axiom 0 merely makes
explicit what is implicit within predicate logic because it is always
already implicit within the logos itself.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
