Chapter 2: Logical Axioms

I. Original Text:

The aforementioned questions suggest before being answered:

A. Existence itself is not secure, because absolute existence or existents need not question existence itself;

B. Existence itself is not independent, because absolute existence or existents need not set objects for existence itself.

[Such inference-free suggestions are what we call “axioms” (the original basis and starting point of all pure logical reasoning), or can be seen as non-logical direct evidence (the basic conditions and circumstances that all “axioms” or “postulates” must possess), just as the “therefore” in “I think therefore I am” can be cancelled or replaced with “is”. Thus, the above suggestions (or axioms) can also be expressed as: I think therefore others exist, others exist therefore I think, where the “therefore” can similarly be cancelled or replaced with “is”. That is to say, without the differentiated existence of others, there would be neither my existence nor my thinking as an attribute of existence.]

In short, existence under questioning (whether as an object of existence or as a questioner) is clearly all relative existence, or what we call finite existents.

This is both the preliminary answer to the above questions and the only logically valid starting point for solving these questions.

However, unlike other academic disciplines or general natural sciences, this is quite a difficult starting point for natural philosophy. [Hegel also sighed about this in the introduction to his “Lesser Logic”, though relatively speaking, his logical starting point was somewhat easier to find because that starting point could be directly “assumed” to be logic itself, so his logical system (that is, his philosophical system) ultimately became a complicated tautology, like someone asking: What is spirit? Answer: Spirit is… spirit (the so-called “absolute spirit” or “absolute idea”). For this, Hegel had to set his starting point (which is also the endpoint) as “absolute”, and for this, Hegel also had to curse the “infinite” that finite existents cannot directly reach as “bad infinity”. Fortunately, Hegel himself admitted that he was just going in circles, but no matter how “self-contained” those “large circles made up of countless small circles” become, the “circle” itself is ultimately a necessary but unattainable pursuit for finite existents to achieve self-existence, and moreover, the “circle” itself is still just what Einstein called a finite but unbounded finite model. In other words, Hegel’s success lies in his unintentional demonstration of the finite structural state of dialectical logic itself, just as Einstein intentionally wanted to prove that the universe itself is a finite but unbounded relative existence.]

II. Interpretation

Chapter 2 discusses the relativity of existence, the establishment of logical axioms, and criticism of Hegelian dialectics. Here are the key ideas and their interpretation:

1. Existence is Relative, Not Absolute

The chapter first presents two propositions:

• A. Existence itself is not secure:

  • If existence were absolute, it would not become a question (i.e., no one would ask “what is existence?”).

• B. Existence itself is not independent:

  • If existence were absolute, it would not need to establish objects through relationships to confirm its own existence.

🔹 Interpretation:

The core idea here is:

• “Existence” cannot be defined as something absolute because it must depend on some relative relationship to be recognized.

• This echoes Chapter 1’s view: “Existence” is not abstracted from existents but emerges from differentiated relationships.

• This is similar to Heidegger’s “ontological difference”, but emphasizes that existence is not an independent entity but rather the mutual relationship between “the questioned” and “the questioner”.

2. Logical Axioms: Direct Evidence, Not Deduction

• What is an axiom?

  • An axiom is a basic premise that does not need to be deduced, a “direct evidence” (self-evident truth).

  • For example, the “therefore” in “I think therefore I am” can be removed, turning it into:

    • “I think is I am”

    • “I think is others exist, others exist therefore I think”

This change means:

• Existence is not just “my” existence but the interaction between “me” and “others”.

• “I” only has meaning when “others” exist, and vice versa.

🔹 Interpretation:

• This view is similar to the “subject-object relationship” in phenomenology:

  • Any consciousness (I think) needs an object to be conscious of (others exist).

  • Existence is not “separate things” but the relationship between the subject (I) and the object (others).

✅ Philosophical Background Connection:

• This can be compared to Sartre’s “others are hell”:

  • Sartre argues that our consciousness is established through the eyes of others, and we cannot escape the existence of others.

  • The theory of evolution goes further, arguing that without “others”, “I think” itself cannot exist.

3. Existence is Limited - Hegel’s Logical Problem

• The theory of evolution criticizes Hegel’s philosophical system:

  • Hegel’s “absolute spirit” or “absolute idea” ultimately falls into tautology:

    • “What is spirit? Spirit is spirit.”

  • This is similar to:

    • Using logical system itself to prove the correctness of logical system, i.e., “circular reasoning”.

• Hegel’s “infinite” vs. the theory of evolution’s “finite”

  • Hegel believes that finite things cannot truly reach infinite, so he calls infinite “bad infinity”.

  • But the theory of evolution argues:

    • Hegel’s logical system is finite, unable to truly reach absolute infinity.

    • The universe (or logical system) is “finite but unbounded”, which is consistent with Einstein’s view of the universe.

🔹 Interpretation:

• The theory of evolution argues that all existence is relative and limited, while Hegel tried to establish an “absolute” system, ultimately unable to avoid circular reasoning.

• This is more consistent with modern science (like relativity):

  • Einstein believes that the universe is “finite but unbounded”, i.e.,

    • It has no boundaries but its scale is limited (e.g., the spherical structure of four-dimensional space-time).

  • The theory of evolution uses this concept, arguing that:

    • Logical system is also “finite but unbounded”:

      • It is limited (unable to reach absolute end) but can maintain logical consistency in self-loop.

  • This means:

    • Any philosophical system (including Hegel’s) cannot truly reach “absolute”, but can only operate within limited boundaries.

✅ Philosophical Background Connection:

• This criticism is similar to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem:

  • Any sufficiently complex axiom system cannot completely prove its completeness and consistency.

  • This is similar to the problem in Hegel’s logical system:

    • Trying to prove logical system itself through logical system, ultimately leading to self-loop.

4. Existence is Relative - The Core Axiom of the Theory of Evolution

The logical axioms of this chapter can be summarized as:

• Existence is not absolute but relative.

• “I think” is not independent but based on “others” existence.

• Logical system itself is finite, not infinite.

The significance of this axiom:

A. Denies the possibility of absolute existence:

Any “existence” is limited and relative, and there is no “absolute existence” that can exist independently of others. This distinguishes it from Plato’s “world of ideas” or Hegel’s “absolute spirit”.

B. Establishes a dynamic existence view:

Existence is not a “static entity” but emerges through the relationship between the subject (I) and the object (others). This is similar to the “relative perspective” of modern science: all observations are relative, not absolute.

C. Lay the foundation for subsequent philosophical discussions:

Since all existence is relative, the starting point of philosophy should not be “absolute existence” but rather how existence is manifested? This affects understanding of issues such as time, space, consciousness, natural laws, etc.

Summary: The Core Ideas of Chapter 2 of the Theory of Evolution

• Existence is Relative: Any existence is not absolute but relative, because if existence were absolute, it would not become a question.

• Establishment of Logical Axioms: The starting point of logical system is direct evidence, such as “I think is others exist, others exist therefore I think”, emphasizing coexistence between subject and object.

• Criticism of Hegel’s Philosophy: Hegel’s “absolute idea” ultimately falls into circular reasoning, unable to truly reach infinity, logical system is still finite.

• Scientific Analogy: Logical system like universe, is “finite but unbounded”, consistent with Einstein’s view of relativity universe, emphasizing relative existence rather than absolute existence.

III. What’s Profound?

The profoundness of this chapter lies in the fundamental exploration of “existence is relative”, and the criticism and transcendence of traditional metaphysics (especially Hegelian philosophy). The core ideas bring philosophical breakthroughs in the following four aspects:

1. Overturn Traditional Existence Theory: Existence is Not Absolute but Relative

• Traditional metaphysics (like Plato, Hegel) emphasizes that “existence” can be absolute, such as:

  • Plato’s “world of ideas” believes that a certain eternal essence determines the existence of reality.

  • Hegel’s “absolute spirit” believes that the ultimate destination of existence is a self-completed unified system.

• But the theory of evolution points out:

  • If existence were absolute, it would not become a question, and philosophy’s pursuit of “what is existence” precisely indicates that existence is not absolute but relative.

  • Existence depends on the differentiation of relationships, not an independent self-existent thing.

🔹 Profoundness:

This challenges the fundamental assumption about “existence” in classical philosophy, making “existence” not a priori, ontological ultimate entity but a dynamic manifestation of relationship. This turns existence theory from static ontology to a more consistent modern scientific relative perspective.

2. Innovative Logical Axiom: Existence Established Depends on Subject-Object Relationship

• Traditional philosophy and logic theory:

  • Logical reasoning needs to be based on “self-evident” axioms, such as the five axioms of Euclid geometry or Kant’s transcendental categories.

• But the theory of evolution proposes:

  • The true starting point of logic is not “I think therefore I am” but “I think is others exist, others exist therefore I think”.

  • Subject (I) and object (others) mutually depend, without “others”, there would be no “I think”.

🔹 Profoundness:

• This view breaks the Cartesian subject-centeredism:

  • Cartesian’s “I think therefore I am” emphasizes the independence of self-consciousness, while the theory of evolution argues that self-consciousness must depend on “others”.

• This is consistent with modern philosophy (like Husserl’s phenomenology, Sartre’s existentialism):

  • Sartre: “others are hell” - human self-consciousness depends on the eyes of others.

  • The theory of evolution goes further, arguing that: “If there is no ‘others’, ‘I think’ itself cannot exist.”

1. Criticism of Hegel’s “Absolute Spirit”: Reveal Its Circular Reasoning Limitation

   • Hegel believes:

     • The ultimate goal of philosophy is to achieve “absolute spirit” unification, i.e., all finite things move towards infinite “absolute” in dialectical development.

   • But the theory of evolution points out:

     • Hegel’s system is actually a complicated tautology (tautology), i.e.,

   • “What is spirit? Spirit is spirit.” - This means:

   • Hegel’s ultimate goal (absolute spirit) is just a conceptual game, not a true philosophical discovery.

🔹 Profoundness:

• The criticism of the theory of evolution reveals a fundamental problem:

  • Hegel’s “infinite” is a man-made concept, not a logical necessity in reality.

• This is similar to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem:

  • Any system cannot prove its completeness through itself, Hegel’s philosophical system tried to do this, but ultimately it was still limited.

4. “Finite but Unbounded” Universe View: Philosophy and Science Integration

• “Finite but Unbounded” (finite but unbounded) is a concept from physics:

  • Einstein’s general theory of relativity shows:

    • The universe is finite (energy and matter are finite), but it has no boundaries (space is curved and closed).

• The theory of evolution uses this concept, arguing that:

  • Logical system itself is “finite but unbounded”:

    • It is limited (unable to reach absolute end) but can maintain logical consistency in self-loop.

  • This means:

    • Any philosophical system (including Hegel’s) cannot truly reach “absolute”, but can only operate within limited boundaries.

🔹 Profoundness:

• The theory of evolution connects philosophical thinking with scientific universe view through this analogy:

  • Traditional philosophy seeks ultimate answer, but science tells us that the world is dynamic and changing, and there may be no absolute ultimate answer.

  • This perspective is more consistent with modern physics, mathematics, and logic development direction than traditional metaphysics.

Summary: The Profoundness of Chapter 2 of the Theory of Evolution

• The core profoundness of the theory of evolution’s second chapter is that it proposes a “relative existence theory”, emphasizing that existence is not a static entity but a dynamic manifestation between subject and object.

• It not only criticized Hegel’s “absolute spirit” concept but also established a more consistent “finite but unbounded” philosophical system with modern scientific logic.

• This theory broke the traditional philosophical ultimate pursuit and accepted that existence itself is constantly changing and relative.

• This perspective is consistent with modern science, mathematics, phenomenology, existentialism, and other interdisciplinary fields, with strong interdisciplinary depth.

🚀 Finally, the second chapter of the theory of evolution is not only a philosophical breakthrough but also a philosophical expression of scientific universe view, freeing philosophy from the shackles of traditional metaphysics and moving towards a more dynamic, relative, and scientific direction.

IV. What are the criticisms?

Although the theory of evolution’s second chapter proposed a unique “relative existence theory” and deeply criticized traditional metaphysics (like Hegelian philosophy), it still has some areas that need to be discussed. Here are some main criticized points:

• The theory of evolution’s second chapter does not completely negate the possibility of “absolute existence”, and some mathematical and physical phenomena still support the possibility of “absolute existence”.

• “I think is others exist, others exist therefore I think” this logical axiom has not been fully demonstrated, existence may not depend on “others” but exist.

• The criticism of Hegel is somewhat one-sided, Hegel’s dialectic method is not a simple circular reasoning but contains dynamic development structure.

• “Finite but Unbounded” analogy is not necessarily applicable to logical system, logical system can be open, not closed loop.

🚀 Finally, the theory of evolution’s view still deserves deep thinking, but its definition of “existence”, establishment of logical axioms, and criticism of Hegel still need stronger argument support, otherwise it may fall into another metaphysical assumption.

V. Author’s Review (Handwritten by Jinspire)

Logical system seems to inevitably contain some circular reasoning - it must have a starting point, and this starting point is also the end point of logical reasoning. No matter how it develops, logical system is always limited by its own framework and cannot escape logic itself. Therefore, “finite but unbounded” logical system is reasonable, just like what Gödel’s incompleteness theorem reveals: Logical system internal cannot completely prove its completeness, and must depend on some external axiom.

Interestingly, even if the above statement itself is reasonable, it is also limited by the finite nature of logical system itself, and its own reasonableness either is an axiom or depends on external.