2 ms·
> If your argument for the axiom of "existence of existence" depends on the axiom of non-contradiction, is the axiom of "existence of existence" truly axiomatic
by guerrilla 7y ago
> If your argument for the axiom of "existence of existence" depends on the axiom of non-contradiction, is the axiom of "existence of existence" truly axiomatic any more?
Obviously since there's no need to rely on precisely one axiom.
- skissane 7y agoMy point being, if you use A to demonstrate B, then B is not axiomatic in the sense of Münchhausen's trilemma. In the sense of Münchhausen's trilemma, an axiom is a belief accepted as true without being justified on the basis of some more basic belief. When you use A to demonstrate B, B ceases to be a belief accepted as true without being justified on the basis of some more basic belief, since you are justifying it on the basis of A.
- guerrilla 7y agoI see what you meant and that's actually interesting regarding LNC. What I mean is if you can use A and B to prove C, it doesn't matter that you may be able to use A and something else to prove B. Relative to C, A and B may be considered axioms.