ddabd61e
XPost: alt.society.liberalism, soc.culture.usa, alt.politics.libertarian
XPost: alt.society.anarchy
From: anarcissie@gmail.com
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:11:11 -0700, Charles Bell wrote:
> On Oct 25, 11:13 am, Anarcissie wrote:
>
>> We don't have to prove existence from a state of non-existence, we just
>> have to have an (existent) method of distinguishing existence from
>> non-existence in a sufficiently reliable manner to construct a logical
>> system upon it.
>>
>>
> There is no "reliable logical system" based on the axiom, existence
> exists, only that no premise or conclusion can contradict the axiom,
> existence exists, and for consciousness exists and causality (as a
> corollary to indentity) exists. To deny that any logical conclusion or
> premise may not contradict these axiomatic concepts is to say that you
> can effectively contradict reality: that you can, indeed, not exist and
> prove your non-existence
>
>
>> I'm not denying consciousness or existence, I'm just saying that so far
>> they're pretty vague concepts to use in logic
>
>
> What sort of concept of "existence", other than the self-evident one,
> would allow one to say he can prove that he does not exist when, in
> reality, he does not exist?
>
> If there be vagueness or ambiguity in 'existence' then propose an
> alternate meaning to 'existence" than the self-evident one.
I suppose it depends on what you want to do with the
axioms; they could be loosely or vaguely conceptualized
if all you're going to do with them is give them veto
power over certain logical developments.
I'm not really happy with a formulation like 'existence
exists' because it's something of an issue whether
abstractions have any sort of being other than as
constructions in human minds. We are perhaps somewhat
constrained here by English linguistic habits, which
demand that verbs be given particular agents.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
