Is it merely Trivially True?
November 24th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: Is it merely Trivially True? :: Is it merely Trivially True? :: Is it merely Trivially True? :: Is it merely Trivially True?
Cologne 24-Nov-2007
Joseph Polanik schrieb Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:28:04 -0500:
> 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.
ME: Yes, it is trivial once one has presupposed “the elementary structure of
the _logos_ (proposition) investigated by Plato”. But precisely this
structure, in turn, can be and has been put into question by philosophers.
For Plato and Aristotle, the very structure of the _logos_ was still a
question. Today, within analytical philosophy, it is taken as a given, and
one proceeds (goes forth) from there, assuming it as a foundation.
>
> such a claim invites the obvious rhetorical question: if you believe
> that Axiom 0 is trivial, why have you contested it so strenously?
ME: For all the reasons I have stated copiously in previous postings.
> 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.
ME: If one has already accepted predicate logic as given, then Axiom 0 is
trivially true. But I do not accept predicate logic as given, nor the concept
of truth/falsity that pertains to predicate logic. For the sake of argument,
I have shown that even allowing Axiom 0 to stand still leads to being. But
more philosophically, I have already indicated why Axiom 0 cannot be accepted
as a self-evident axiom: one has to go back to the originary phenomena. There
it can be seen that the subject/predicate structure breaks down and that the
question, “what?”, let alone the question, “what am I?”, again becomes
malleable, full of mystery.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
