[Mohan.C]

Life, I have just realised is a Chain Of Events. Every event that occur concerning our sorrounding, our birth with our mothers being pregnant is all linked. History is continuous. Through history has been progress. Evolution is progressive so is thought, feeling, conciousness...etc. But they are all always linked. The Chain Of Events occurs as a process of evolution. It is linked with the Laws of science and philosophy.

Now I will look at the finer picture.
Event- An event is the production of an effect from a cause. Or occcurance is a cause. In the Chain Of Events a cause can both be a cause and an effect. A cause is an effect of another cause which caused it. And also an effect can be a cause.

Now, I will go to logic. Axioms are derived from logic. And a little bit of instinct.
Law, law..we call a natural mechanism a law. I will redefine Law as "the logic of nature"

The chain of events is depended on laws. A cause and an effect can be distinguished through time. "A cause occuring in a forwarded time is an Effect.The logic we use to link the cause and an effect can be called an axiom. And I will redefine Axiom as "the logical link to the cause and effect"

And here we must clearly understand the difference or the connection between an Axiom and a law.
"An axiom is just a link. It is not an operation. But a Law is an operation. It operates on the axiom link".

And here we can clearly understand that laws are all based on axioms and logic. But they do not depend on intuition or instinct. But, I do agree that to derive a logic both logic and intuition are necessary.

I will finally summarize this:

1. Every event has a cause and an effect.
2. The cause and effect are linked by axioms.
3. The logical way of understanding an event is called a law.
4. Every law operates on a event through the axioms.

-Mohan

[Guille]

Mohan,,

Preciselly Fukuyama's theory of the end of history comes from that idea. That history is simply the progress, and progress, as what it classically means, has dissapeared. There is no unidirectional advance.

I doubt that axioms are the link of cause and effect. It is hard to understand that definition, can you explain it, or give examples? An axiom is a start, not a virtual (temporal) form, it is just static, agains the logic of change, of chain of events of which speak.

Also, the philosophy of events isn't very clear. Becuase we could jsutify that (ex) I kill someone and I shall not pay for it because something caused that effect. I mean, by this, that the philosophy of event (well, not all of them, but yours definatelly) ignores the idea of subjects and entities acting and interacting.

[harmonygirl]

Mohan, very precisely put, however, presupposed the linear functionality of time (cause and effect), no?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Mohan, very precisely put, however, presupposed the linear functionality of time (cause and effect), no?

True. It is too much a classical idea I think. Then came the idea of cyclical time (or better history, which is the term used so we not get into trouble with physicists), and the most original approach of Baudrillard of 'recyclyble history'. Mohan, your assumption is true, but there if it were all that easy philosophers wouldn't wonder so much.

[Mohan.C]

I speak time as linear because I believe in the universe to be open and continuous. I am not saying axioms change they are static. I meant that the logic operating on the effects from a cause is an Axiom. Because I thought logic is based on axioms. However when you say my philosophy of events ignores "subjects and entities acting and interacting". I believe these come under the consideration of science and not of philosophy. But, I may be wrong. And since philosophy has not yet had the full freedom to accomodate science there is still much to wonder at.

[WithoutMe]

Well Mohan,
Even if an event doesnot have any cause or effect, that is it is either acausal or self-caused (i.r., the case is the effect & the effect is the cause), - there would be no no way of knowing it, coz by yur effort to know an event, even be it an acausal event, u wud introduce causality into it. Thus it is with every acausal event, only if it exists, that every acausal event occurs in isolation, otherwise, it will but be influnced by all that is around it & thus leading to causality.

Hence, an event if acausal can never be known & the fact is that -- this fact of an acausal event being not-knowable, is otself unknowable & ad infinitum!!!

Thus, it is with most of metaphysics that one has to ultimately halt at a certain point where neither an affirmation nor a denial can be done, coz to do any, one has to first know it, coz only after knowing can one conclude, whereas in such cases, the thing itself just cant be known, & to conclude it, even its unknowability cant be known. Hence, all the talk by the post-mordernists abt the limitation of thought & of language is just a play of words, coz what really acnnot be known, can be even known, that is, the unknowablity of that which can be known, cannot even be known!

So, what really cannot be known, cannot be known & that which here is teh unknowablity of the unknowability of that which cannot be known, cannot be known too... & ad infitum!!!! Thus, it is noone has any inkling or any idea as to the REAL UNKNOWN, otherwise how wud be unknown!

Infact that which we know that we donot know, is actually that which we know but know very little, that is, one can never known nothing abt anything. Alas! if nothing could have been known, then had it been nothing!

Even when I am using the word "nothing", i am actually referring to the idea/concept of nothing which I have in my mind, & what is that idea? that idea is always in conjunction to the negation of that something, which i consider as not nothing! Can "nothing" be known in isolation?

Note: even the word "nothing" has "to the negation of that something, which i consider as not nothing", as in -- "nothing" = "no" + "thing"! Now, i know aht I thing is, atleast I can feel with my senses, & what i do to concepptualise & conginise "nothing", i simply use the idea of negation on something that I know, & that something here is "thing"!!!!

The same can be said for terms as Infinity, Absolute, Perfect, & all such terms which are borderlines of Metaphysics!!

Rgds,
wM.

PS. "When he to whom one speaks does not understand, and he who speaks himself does not understand, that is metaphysics" -- Voltaire.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C I speak time as linear because I believe in the universe to be open and continuous. I am not saying axioms change they are static. I meant that the logic operating on the effects from a cause is an Axiom. Because I thought logic is based on axioms. However when you say my philosophy of events ignores "subjects and entities acting and interacting". I believe these come under the consideration of science and not of philosophy. But, I may be wrong. And since philosophy has not yet had the full freedom to accomodate science there is still much to wonder at.

I didn't say that you said that axioms change. But axioms do change anyway, specially to face the strongest problems; logical axioms in particular have had to been change several times, due to russell's paradox, or godel's theorem, or Hilbert's work...

Logic is not a god that you must worship. That is one of the most basic lessons from Russell's philosophy (which is far more interesting than his mathematics). He said that whiles he was an adolescent he was msot interested by religion and by math. So he decided to be religious with math, and mathematical with religion. That is why he became such a strong atheist and lost his 'faith' in logic.

'Subjects and entities acting and interacting' is a philosophical sentence that rises from those four terms which are in fact rooted to philosophy. Both science and philosophy are about the external and the internal, the difference is that science deals with subjects (which are subjects as subjective) and philosophy deals with entities (which are subjects as objective). So the sentence includes both.

Science will never give us the 'ultimate truth' in which it makes us believe. Philosophers invented science in order to falsify, to go the easy way. It isn't bad, I'm not a cultural judge, but it isn't as definitive as you think.