Formal Axiology, the Leibniz–Voltaire Controversy and the “Hume Guillotine”: Some Considerations Concerning Verification of These Philosophical Techniques in the Light of Some Implicit Belief and Knowledge Theories (Gobbes, Hintikka, Levesque)

In the article we offer a new formalisaton of the well-known logical, ethical, and ontological paradox, i. e., the so-called “Hume guillotine”, which is made at the intersection of the two branches of science, to wit, of the implicit knowledge theories (Gobbes, Hintikka, Levesque) and of the formalalgebraic axiology (V. O. Lobovikov), the latter being a variant of the contemporary consistent Fregean logics. The “Hume guillotine” verification test is being made in light of the Aristotelian doctrine of potency, operation, and entelechy being the three stages of any process. A truth-value table for the function y = entb is offered. It is demonstrated by means of some simple calculations that Vladimir O. Lobovikov was right in his treating the “Hume guillotine” as a means of an empirical knowledge analysis, not of the a priori one. It is also so in connection with the scholar’s interpretation of the Leibniz–Voltaire controversy, if we bear in mind that the German philosopher had been correct in respect to the a priori knowledge, whereas the French thinker had justly estimated the empirical one. We also consider the Gobbes’ stance, prior to that of Hume, concerning non-existence of the future being the reason of its unpredictability.