On Choosing a Root Predicate
December 1st, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: On Choosing a Root Predicate :: On Choosing a Root Predicate :: On Choosing a Root Predicate :: The One True Root Predicate
Michael Eldred wrote:
>ME: You have already predicated being in the very formulation of your
>Axiom 0, because Axiom 0 postulates that there is something to be said
>that can be said about each and every x that is, i.e. about each and
>every being. But it is precisely the task of ontology to delve into
>what “x is” means, i.e. to elucidate the sense of being rather than
>surreptitiously presupposing it and taking it for granted. “x is”
>already contains the mystery.
I agree that ‘x is’, ‘it is’ and, more intensely, ‘I am’ already contain
a mystery: the copula has as an implicit complement that asserts
something of the subject; but, which predicate will make explicit that
which is implicit — without adding more than was implicit?
obviously, the root predicate will make explicit what is implicit; but,
equally obviously, the mystery doesn’t tell you its own name. we must
name this root predicate. you name it ‘being’, some name it ‘existence
and others name it ‘reality’.
>>JP: you are the one who insists that ‘being’ is co-predicated of any
>>subject to which ‘reality’ (used as a root predicate) is attributed.
>ME: Actually, I now want to radicalize that co-predication into
>pre-predication (see below).
nothing you’ve said provides any basis for assigning a privileged status
to ‘being’ as the name of that which is asserted of x when one says ‘x
is’.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
