Heidegger

Googlers note: This is the 6TH TIME in a row (!!!!!!) that Polanik has
clipped out the argument that I expressly requested that he address:

>> 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.

Joseph Polanik wrote:
> Schizo-Epistemology: Necessary and (False or Vacuous)
>
> Professor,
>
> 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’ [where ‘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
>
> recently, you’ve argued that you’ve been misunderstood.
>
> >>your argument for [1] seems to be that Q is undeniable.
>
> >I have never said that Q is undeniable. I have only argued that it is a
> >necessary implication of self-existence.
>
> yes; but, you also say that Q is false; and, you haven’t yet come to
> grips with the oddity of having a primary premise, [1] above, that is a
> conditional statement whose consequent is false.
>
> if the antecedent of a condition is false; then, the truth value of the
> conditional as a whole depends on the truth value of the antecedent –
> in this case ‘I exist’.
>
> if the antecedent ‘I exist’ is True then conditonal is False
>
> if the antecedent ‘I exist’ is False then conditonal is Vacuously True.
>
> thus, Professor, your defense of Heidegger is based a premise that can
> only be false or vacuous.
>
>
> Joe
>
> [for more information on the truth value of conditionals:
> http://www.abstractmath.org/MM/MMConditi….]
>
>
>

Posted on Sunday, May 11th, 2008 at 6:01 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback