A Non-Violent Solution?

[genkaus]

Then by your very own confession, you have a limited creativity and imagination.

What limitation?

There is no such thing as an inescapable axiom. All that truly exists in that regard are overly-arrogant philosophers who have erroneously convinced themselves that their personal opinions cannot be dismissed.

Even as you make this statement, you have already accepted that inescapable axiom.

1. You made the statement "There is no such thing as an inescapable axiom".

2. For this statement to hold any relevance or meaning to the conversation, it must be a fact, not an opinion.

3. For it to be a fact, it must be independent of my desires or yours, i.e. it must be independent of any consciousness.

4. Therefore, before making that statement you must accept that things can exist independent of consciousness - that is the axiom of primacy of existence.

This is not proof of the axiom of primacy of existence. This is evidence that no statement of knowledge or truth can be made without implicitly assuming that axiom.

No it wouldn't. And I've already explained why this isn't the case.

Your "axiom of existence" (by your very own definition) is based on a your own preconceived notions of what you believe to be 'reality'. You've already demanded that in order for your axiom to hold two things must be in place:

If you think that an axiom depends upon any other things, then you must really not understand what an axiom means.

1. Structure can exist independent of consciousness.

This is not something that the axiom of primacy of existence depends on - this is the axiom. Its simply another way of saying the same thing

2. Consciousness must necessarily be the sole product of structure.

This statement is derived from the axiom. It is not presupposed.

You can't prove either of those two assumptions. Especially with respect to any concept of reality that may be totally different from the illusion of dichotomy created by a spacetime universe.

The first statement. By definition, it cannot be proven. The second is a consequence of the first. These axioms are definitely applicable to this reality and they would be applicable to any reality that is logically coherent. Your basis is that in the alternate reality, they somehow, magically, won't be applicable and that reality would somehow, magically, still be logically coherent.

So your "axiom of existence", is already based on the very limited view that the structure of our spacetime universe, and your imagined dichotomy between structure and consciousness must hold in every possible description of an underlying reality.

If it doesn't hold for a particular reality (underlying or otherwise) that reality would be self-contradictory and irrational. Is that the form of your imagined reality?

You have no justification in demanding that.

So you're just filled with hot air.

Clearly you just think you know far more than you do.

As far as I can see you simply have a very limited knowledge of logic, and you totally ignore the dependencies of your axioms.

There's no point in discussing this with you any further until you go back and pay attention in the foundational courses.

You are erroneously assuming way too much about the power and applicability of your basic "axioms" (i.e your foundational assumptions).

That's all there is to that.

You reveal your own ignorance of philosophy by talking about "dependencies" of axioms. You talk about application of logic and reason and yet ignore its very foundations without which no application of logic or reason would be possible. You talk about limitations of knowledge when your own position is based on absence of it. You talk about denying the axioms, when with every statement of fact you make, you have already implicitly accepted them.

Going back to the courses would not suffice for you. You need to be born again and grow up again.