From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sat Apr 19 2003 - 04:06:58 BST
Platt,
> What do you think of defining a philosphical axiom as a concept that
> has to be accepted and used in the process of denying it?
I would guess that you would get a lot of logical conundrums, but not a very
useful philosophy.
>Examples:
>
> What is, is.
Let's see. Suppose I deny that what is, is. This implies that there is
something that is, but is not. How about, "This statement is not". If it is,
it is not. If it is not, well, I don't know what it is.
Another question: how can I use this axiom. What can I substitute for the
word "What". A unicorn?
>
> Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving what is.
Well, you have defined "consciousness" as "perception", now what is
perception? But, I admit, I know how to use the word "perception" for the
most part. So since last night I perceived a unicorn in my dreams, I can
conclude that a unicorn is.
>
> What is is possessed by identity.
This one I just disagree with, since I assume it defines "possessed by
identity" to be synonymous to "what is". However, I deem identity to exist
only by virtue of difference, and vice versa (for which I appeal to the
logic of contradictory identity, no less).
Anyway, on whether an axiomatic philosophy is possible, I doubt it. The
virtue of a mathematical axiomatic system is that there is no need to go
outside the axioms for further explication. (Not true, actually, since one
needs the "rules for using an axiomatic system" which somehow one "just
knows", but let it go).
The only way I could see doing something similar in philosophy is to also
borrow from mathematics that virtue. Here, for example, are the Peano axioms
for arithmetic, which establish how one is to use 'number', '0', and
'successor of':
0 is a number.
If n is a number, then the successor of n is a number.
For all n (n a number) 0 is not the successor of n.
If the successor of n = the successor of m (n and m numbers) then n = m.
If a property P holds for 0 and if for any n (n a number) if P holds for n
then P holds for the successor of n, then P holds for all numbers.
(Note, all the surrounding verbiage, e.g. If..then.., and "a property holds
for..", etc. can all be put into the formalism of first order predicate
calculus, which is presupposed here.)
The point being that these axioms implicitly define 'number', '0', and
'successor of', with no implication to or from anything outside the system.
I don't know how to do that in philosophy, but if one did, I think one
would be very deep in postmodern-land. In fact, in my pursuit of an "ironic
metaphysics" I have sometimes pondered trying to incorporate this approach.
But since it would require the logic of contradictory identity, and not
first order predicate calculus, I suspect I am not going to get very far.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 19 2003 - 04:12:25 BST