Heidegger

Joseph Polanik wrote:
> >>but, there is no way to save your argument in its present form without
> >>denying the assumption that one can not attribute predicates to
> >>nothingness.
>
> >>if it is so important to save your argument; then, just deny this
> >>assumption.
>
> >>go ahead. make my day.
>
> […]

Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>>* it is assumed by predicate logic that one can not attribute
>>>>predicates to nothingness.
>>>Please prove that assumption without appealing to your first law of
>>>reality.
>>no can do. the first law of reality rests on the assumption that one
>>can not attribute predicates to nothingness.
>>>(lol […]

Joseph Polanik wrote:
> >>* it is assumed by predicate logic that one can not attribute
> >>predicates to nothingness.
>
> >Please prove that assumption without appealing to your first law of
> >reality.
>
> no can do. the first law of reality rests on the assumption that one can
> not attribute predicates to nothingness.
>
> […]

Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>I showed that, given your own definitions, the skeptical conclusion
>>you derived from your set of premises is ‘I have not proven by
>>evidence based logical deduction that I am not nothing’.
>>I argue that any I which can can assert this skeptical conclusion
>>can continue ‘the fact […]

On 3/30/08, Joseph Polanik wrote:
> is the philosophy professor unable to answer a simple question that
> could be posed by anyone — irregardless of what previous conversations
> you’ve had with them or anyone else? the question is: is ‘the Nothing’
> (as defined by the Heidegger) able to assert ‘I have not proven by
> […]

is the philosophy professor unable to answer a simple question that
could be posed by anyone — irregardless of what previous conversations
you’ve had with them or anyone else? the question is: is ‘the Nothing’
(as defined by the Heidegger) able to assert ‘I have not proven by
evidence based logical deduction that I am not nothing’?
Anthony Crifasi […]

In a message dated 29/03/2008 15:55:30 GMT Standard Time,
michael at sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes:
Jud is sure concerning Joe’s slippery gameplaying:
It is obvious that Joe is running rings around skinhead Heideggerienism
Well, it seems to me, a mere musician, that neither Anthony nor I (nor
MichaelE earlier) have been exemplifying or employing any kind of what you call
“Heideggerienism” […]

The problem with Polanik isn’t so much that he’s analytical, but that
he’s bad at even that. A consistent analytic would at least analyze
themselves into oblivion and hence corner themselves into considering
the possibility of the impossible - i.e., the non-identical actuality of
identity through the utter implosion of attempted identical identity.
But Polanik isn’t even a consistent […]

I think you hit the nail on the head, Bob. To expand(I hope):
Polanik’s mode of philosophizing is definitively, exasperatingly,
irritatingly analytical. The thing that is most difficult for
analytical philosophers (including most all British and American
educated people) to understand is possibility, which is at the very
core, as well as a around the edges, as […]

Joseph Polanik wrote:
> >>now all we have to decide is whether ‘the Nothing’ (as defined by
> >>Heidegger) is capable of asserting this same conclusion about itself.
> >>how about it, Anthony, is ‘the Nothing’ able to assert ‘I have not
> >>proven by evidence based logical deduction that I am not nothing’?
>
> […]