In a posting on Google Groups mathematical logic group, "Is Existence a
property of something?",
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/7c...
I suggested the possiblity that "existence", despite its im****tant
mathematical implications, is, effectively, a concept with no specific
meaning. I've lately been exploring this notion in a debate on a
Chinese philosophy site, in Chinese, and I think some of the linguistic
and cultural aspects of the discussion there may actually have some
mathematical implications. See,
http://groups.google.com/group/cultstudy/browse_thread/thread/277c946...
Bearing in mind the work of Hilbert, suggesting that self-consistency
is the basis of mathematical existence, and Godel's uncertainty
theorem, effectively undermining the concept of mathematical
consistency itself, a broad-based philosophical analysis may be of
interest.
In Chinese, the same two-characters are used for the english words
"presence" and "existence" (see the link above, for the chinese). In
western societies, these two concepts have different meanings.
Basically, when something exists, it is tied into a broader framwork of
reality. When something is present, we are aware of it, but it may or
may not be real.
I don't believe this concept of a "universal, objective reality" is
nearly as clear in Chinese culture as it is in the West. Neither is
the concept of existence. And, bear in mind, the scientific method, as
such, never really developed in China. Neither did modern mathematics.
Bear in mind, China is, traditionally, a fairly atheistic culture. In
particular, there is no traditional concept of a universal,
anthropomorphic deity, in Chinese culture. As a consequence, I
believe, there is much less of a sense of man as the "master of
nature". To what extent is this concept of man as "the master of
nature" necessary as an assumption for the pursuit of modern
mathematics and science?
In Genesis 1, God speaks, and his word becomes reality. In the Gospel
according to John, 1:1-14, the "word" is the beginning of all things,
and God is in the word. Then, the "word" is made flesh and blood, as a
man.
In the Chinese bible John, 1:1-14, "word" is translated as "way". This
is from the Daoist Chinese philosophy, the "way". "Words", as such, in
chinese, have no specific power, on their own. To what extent does the
Chinese perspective challenge western assumptions regarding reality,
science, and mathematics?
|
