The Relationship between Axiom and Translation
December 15th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: Yes, I Have No Holerons :: Axiom 0 and its Translation (1) :: Is Dasein a Reality? :: Allegations of Demolition
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”.
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.
>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.
how?
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.
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?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
