Quote:
Originally Posted by utabintarbo  Try to refute "existence exists" without conceding that existence does exist. Try to refute the Law of Identity while you're at it. |
Well, let me take a shot at it
(1) existence exists
this unpacks to
(1') that which exists, exists
This however is a bit circular, don't you think? It doesn't really shed any light on whether or not anything really exists.
What you want to say is:
(1'') At least one thing exists, and it's not "me"
But this is different than 1, and can't be determined from a purely logical point of view.
As for the law of identity:
(2) A is A
This is a tautology. From it you can only derive B is B, C is C, D is D, etc. You cannot derive the law of non-contradition, or even that A is not B. This in itself is not very useful.
Also, this is different that the metaphysical claim:
(2') Everything that exists has a specific nature.
This can be taken as an assumption or not... there's nothing *logically* binding here.
Axioms can't really pull themselves up from the bootstraps. They are just glorified assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by utabintarbo Please review the definition of "axiom" above. |
"The" definiton, or Ann Rand's definition? Generally, I just use the term to mean any starting assumption (or rule).