As usual, an excellent analysis.


The use of numbers and infinities seems to create confusion. Even the use of the word "derive" is a bit problematic. Are you speaking of the derivation of concepts or of physical processes that demonstrate cause/effect, or both?

Hello Philosophim,

As we already discussed, I apologize for the late and overdue response: I have been preoccupied with other things lately and, thusly, have not had the time to adequately respond.

Moreover, since it has been so long (which is entirely my fault), I have developed my view quite significantly since then; so much in fact, that I think a bit more elaboration on my end will suffice to relinquish all the confusion that has sprung thus far (as they are squarely, in my opinion, due to the vagueness and prematurity of my original essay).

Firstly, I would like to note which terminology (of which I used in the essay) that I find to be of no use anymore: pretty much all of it other than PoR itself. Sine qua nons are, in hindsight to me now, just an obscurity conceptually that need not be invoked to convey my view that pertains to the essay. Honestly, I should probably just re-write it. Likewise, infinites do not need to be invoked (or at least I don’t think) to portray the real, true underlying meaning I was so inadequately trying to express.

Consequently, I think it is better if I elaborate on what PoR really is instead of focusing on deconstructing my own essay (because it is too inadequate and confused to me now). PoR is really what I would consider the fundamental logic of reason (as the faculty of the mind) in a transcendental sense (i.e., the necessary preconditions for the possibility of being a mind). It is that which is implicitly required to be a mind, as opposed to something one is or is capable of fixating upon as a mind; so, to address your contention about provability, there is no requirement for a being to be capable of thinking “rationally” in sense of fixating upon formal logic or what have you to nevertheless fundamentally be governed by PoR; and there is no need for a being to “derive” in the sense of what the average human being does—as by “derive” I mean it in a more general, mere sense: an implicit conclusion. A plant doesn’t “decide” nor is it aware of its “conclusions” but it regardless “derives” to grow towards the light.

Which leads me to a giant cause of a lot of ambiguity in my essay: the incredibly blurry line between concepts and objects. I made it sound, with the use of infinites, like a sine qua non would be essentially a pure infinite object, which would just equate to an unterminating, absolute infinite of existence—which is not what I was trying to convey (but I inadequately described it). What really should have been described is that which a mind is contingent on in order to even be such (i.e., transcendental aspects of a mind) and that would have segued into PoR as an example of it.

To give you a bit deeper insight into my position now, I hold that all life is fundamentally will, and “will” and “mind” are inextricably linked—as to be a will is to choose one motive over another at any given point in time (which I would consider a process of a mind). Therefore, I view a plant just as much as a human as a will and, subsequently, as a mind where “mind” is meant to be interpreted in its most rudimentary sense (as obviously there is much difference in terms of a human mind vs a plant mind). I don’t think a plant is “thinking” in the sense that it is leveraging words and concepts to derive its next move but, nevertheless, it does fundamentally choose a motive over another (e.g., it grows towards the light). PoR is a guiding, necessary principle of being a mind (and a will): there are superordinate rules (i.e., subjectively affirmed guiding principles) which “derive” the conclusions (i.e., subordinate rules) which, in turn, guide the actions of the will. There is no person alive which can be without with principle (implicitly): no matter how disabled they may be, they are fundamentally a will and a mind which, in turn, entails that they performs actions (no matter how basic or ill-executed) based off of intentions which, in turn, are motives which were determined by obligations to rules (i.e., superordinate rules). To me, to posit hypothetically a being which has not PoR is to posit an unalive being (i.e., a being with no will: a corpse with no life).

Hopefully that helped clear up the confusion and if it didn’t them please let me know! Again, I apologize for the belated response and for the fact that my ideas have evolved since our last encounter but, nevertheless, I hope I adequately addressed your contentions (otherwise, please point out where I failed to do so).

I look forward to hearing from you,
Bob

Hello jgill,

I apologize for the belated response my friend! I have been, unfortunately, very busy and haven’t had the time to look at the forum.

Now that I have been thinking about it more, I think you are right with respect to many regards: I do think that, in hindsight, I wrote the essay too vaguely and inadequately; so I totally understand your confusion.

To answer your question, what I was talking about was, in hindsight, transcendental logic (i.e., the study of the necessary preconditions, sometimes called a priori conditions, for the faculty known as reason); and so by “derive” I was referring to reason with no direct connection (or disconnection) to causality. Personally, I don’t think reasoning is a process which can be reduced to physical causality, but I don’t think it matters which stance one takes on that issue to accept PoR.

I want to apologize again and thank you for your responses!

Bob