Heidegger

Googlers note: this is the THIRD post in a row that Joseph Polanik has
once again clipped out and left unaddressed an argument that I expressly
gave after he claimed I never gave it:

>>>> your posts since then support a reconstruction of your argument as
>>>> follows:
>>>>
>>>> * it is a fact that, in english, the first-person singular pronoun is
>>>> now and has for centuries been spelled ‘I’.
>>>>
>>>> * it is a fact that a given person uses ‘I’ for self-referencing at
>>> various points in time.
>>>>
>>>> * these two facts must have an explanation.
>>>>
>>>> * the only possible explanation is Q, that that the referent of ‘I’ is
>>>> always self-identical.
>>>>
>>>> * but, at [2], -Q is assumed/concluded: the referent of ‘I’ is never
>>>> self-identical.
>>>>
>>>> * therefore … what? that your claim to have found the only possible
>>>> explanation for the unchanged spelling of the english first-person
>>>> singular pronoun is false?
>>>
>>> I cited Hume’s explanation here:
>>>
>>> http://an-archos.com/pipermail/heidegger…
>>>
>>>
>>> You failed to address that argument in your subsequent replies, and now
>>> pretend like I never gave an explanation. If, in your next reply, you do
>>> not address each and every item in what I cite at the link above WITHOUT
>>> CLIPPING ANYTHING OUT, this conversation is over.

Nowhere in your reply below do you address anything in the link above.
In fact, you once again clipped it out, contrary to my express request,
which request was in response to your chronic pattern of clipping out my
arguments and then claiming that I never gave them. Therefore, until you
address each and every argument that I cite at the above link, this
conversation is over.

Joseph Polanik wrote:
> Schizo-Epistemology: Contradicting Heidegger
>
> Anthony,
>
> one of your crucial claims seems to be that the proposition ‘I remain
> self-identical throughout all my perceptions’ is a necessary condition
> of existence.
>
> this proposition may be symbolized, as follows:
>
> [1]: P -> Q
>
> where
>
> P = ‘I exist’ [’I exist’ == ‘I am not nothing’]
> Q = ‘I remain self-identical throughout all my perceptions’
>
> you also claim that Q is false; so:
>
> [2]: -Q
>
> >>==============================================================
> >>The Structure of the Argument
> >>==============================================================
>
> >>let’s take a look at the structure of your argument that P -> Q is
> >>true. there are a number of problems that remain despite the fact that
> >>you’ve not dealt with them.
>
> >>———————————————–
> >>Problem 1: Contrary to Heidegger
> >>———————————————–
>
> >>from my post of 2008-04-16:
>
> >>>toward the end of his career, Heidegger makes a startling admission.
> >>>in discussion Descartes, Heidegger writes: “The formula which the
> >>>proposition sometimes has, ‘Cogito ergo sum’, suggests the
> >>>misunderstanding that it is here a question of inference. … The sum
> >>>is not a consequence of the thinking, but vice versa; it is the
> >>>ground of thinking, the fundamentum.”
>
> >>>this is, of course, all that Descartes needs to prove ‘I experience;
> >>>therefore, I am’.
>
> >>>Heidegger is using ‘being’ as his root predicate (ie to carry the
> >>>meaning ‘not nothing’) while we have been using ‘exists’ or
> >>>’existence’; so, we must translate back and forth.
>
> >>>once we notice experiencing anything at all, we deduce that the
> >>>logical preconditions of experiencing have been satisfied; and, thus,
> >>>we can say either: ‘I experience; therefore, I am’ or ‘given that I
> >>>experience; it is necessarily true that I am’.
>
> >>How do you explain how your proposition [1] can be made to appear
> >>consistent with the passage I quoted from Heidegger?
>
> >We’ve tried this before:
>
> >http://an-archos.com/pipermail/heidegger_an-archos.com/2008-March/033704.html
>
> in the unlikely event that future googlers discovery this thread, they
> will find a philosophy professor, Anthony Crifasi, advocating a
> schizo-epistemology so bizarre that it makes The Heidegger seem rational
> in comparison.
>
> yes, we have been here before. post 033704 from the arkive shows you, in
> another context, avoiding discussion of Heidegger by saying “let’s leave
> Heidegger aside for the moment”. that was 2008-03-11. it is now 6 weeks
> later and you are still treading water in the tarn desparately trying to
> avoid the conflict between Heidegger’s position and your new and
> improved schizo-epistemology.
>
> Answer the question, Professor.
>
> How do you explain how your proposition [1] can be made to appear
> consistent with the passage I quoted from Heidegger?
>
> Joe
>
>

Posted on Sunday, May 4th, 2008 at 6:02 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback