Comments

  • Why be rational?
    Claims to rationality are pernicious.

    One must develop a perfect epistemology, a perfect logic and and a perfect ontology only that way one could argue that one is rational.

    For any other status in philosophy one is intending in the best case, or attempting in the most cases, to be rational.
  • The Principle of Bivalence and the Law of the Excluded Middle. Please help me understand
    We have to agresive here.

    There is no partial truth. And partial falseness.

    Truth is what is true.

    What we normally call truth is not such. It's all Aristotle applying PNC and PEM (don't call them laws please) to contingent identities.

    Here's the explanation:

    Although it is undeniable of that which is there it is. And it is irrational asserting that it is not.

    However here comes the epistemological problem:

    What there is?

    If one is certain then one is trully aware of what there is. If one is not trully aware, and therefore certain of what there is then one ignores what there is. So one CONTINGENTLY assumes what could there be (axiomatization).

    It is applying PNC and PEM to contingent identities what leads to incompleteness and therefore to the ilussion of the absence of truth.

    Only when PNC and PEM are applied to concepts that are not contingent is that the mind can grasp truth.

    Therefore I introduce you guys to the actual disctinction:

    Contingency / Non-Contingency.
  • Existence is not a predicate
    Guys. This one is easy:

    Relativity!!

    Being unmarried is not a predicate of everyone. However it is for a bachellor.

    In the same way existence is only predicate to itself.

    Existence is what exists.

    What exists is existence.

    Does an apple exist, then?

    it neither exists nor doesn't exist. That's the implications of relativity.

    The apple can be said to exist if the conditions are so that there is an apple. an apple can be said not to exist if the conditions are so that there is not an apple.

    Phenomena is interdependent causation, therefore for phenomena it is not accurate saying it has existece as a predicate. But it is also innacurate saying it has not existence as a predicate.

    Only the metaphenomenological can have the predicate of existing. In other words just existence itself and its attributes.

Jeoffrey Wortman

Start FollowingSend a Message