5X Polanik clips out argument
May 4th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: 6X POLANIK CLIPS OUT ARGUMENT! :: 6X POLANIK CLIPS OUT ARGUMENT! :: 6X POLANIK CLIPS OUT ARGUMENT! :: 6X POLANIK CLIPS OUT ARGUMENT!
Googlers note: this is what it takes to get Joseph to address every
argument that I give in a previous post - except of course the one I
expressly asked him not to leave out, which he’s left out five times in
a row now:
>> 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.
