Heidegger

Joseph Polanik wrote:

> Schizo-Epistemology: Necessary and (False or Vacuous) [corrected]
>
> Professor Crifasi,
>
> you didn’t respond to my argument that your major premise is either
> false or vacuous (see below).
>
> instead you pasted in material from posts that are extraneous to the
> argument presented below. answer the argument, Professor; it could be
> advanced by anyone irregardless of our past posts. what would you say to
> someone else who observed that your major premise is guarranteed to be
> either false or vacuous? that you don’t have to address this point
> because Joe Polanik didn’t reply to some other thread?

No, I would say this:
 http://groups.google.com.by/group/fa.ana…

and this:
 http://an-archos.com/pipermail/heidegger…

and this:
 http://an-archos.com/pipermail/heidegger…

There are many more I could list.

As you saw yesterday, when you actually address my arguments (as you
finally did), I do in fact go back and address every one of your
replies. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for you. Thus, until you
fulfill basic dialectical etiquette by addressing every item in the last
link above, there are no grounds here for reciprocity. You will have
your reply when I have yours.

> moreover, there is an element of doublespeak in your whining about
> alleged non replies to arguments so tangential that you can’t even
> explain how they help prove your major premise.
>
> in March you were whining that I haven’t addressed your premises.
> speaking of me, you say:
>
> “Yet you continue your rhetorical tapdancing and maneuvering by
> attacking the conclusion without addressing the premises.”
>
> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/archive/a…
>
> well, now I’m questioning your premise; and, you are still whining.
>
> as you can see I gave you a link to a post from the list arkive. I will
> try to honor your request for links; but, I decline to address every one
> of your concerns in a single post.
>
> I’ve indicated previously that I’m going to put separate points in
> separate posts so that readers can more easily see who is failing to
> address which points in contention.
>
> if this is how you intend to show that Heideggerianism is the one true
> philosophy; then you need to explain why I should conclude ‘I am
> nothing’ based on a premise that is either false or vacuous.
>
> [Begin Repost for the Convenience of the Professor]:
>
> >On 5/5/08, *Joseph Polanik* wrote:
>
> >>Professor Crifasi,
>
> >>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 consequent 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’.
>
> >The truth value of a conditional as a whole is simply the implication
> >of consequent by the antecedent, regardless of the truth of the
> >consequent. If the consequent is false, the dependence of the
> >consequent is not thereby false, but only the antecedent itself.
>
> not so!
>
> the truth value of the condition itself is dependent on the truth values
> of the antecedent and consequent — not the other way around.
> furthermore, the truth value of the condition can be caluclated
> according to the following table:
>
> Truth Table Values for a Conditional
>
> P -> Q
> [1] T T T
> [2] T F F
> [3] F T T
> [4] F T F
>
> in the above table (which may not be aligned if you don’t get plain
> ASCII email), there are three columns of T’s and F’s. the first and
> third of these give the truth values of the individual propositions;
> and, the middle column of T’s and F’s gives the truth value of the
> implication itself.
>
> with only two propositions, there are exactly 4 combinations of truth
> values for the two propositions. of these, the only one that results in
> a value of ‘false’ for the implication is condition 2 where a true
> premise implies a false conclusion.
>
> your premise 2 asserts -Q; meaning, that Q is false. hence, the relevant
> rows in the above table are [2] and [4]. hence the three points made
> previously:
>
> >if the antecedent ‘I exist’ is True then the conditonal is False
>
> >if the antecedent ‘I exist’ is False then the conditonal is Vacuously
> >True
>
> >thus, Professor, your defense of Heidegger is based a premise that can
> >only be false or vacuous.
>
> you may want to check out Peter Suber’s website on logic at
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/l… where there is a
> more extended discussion of truth tables. also good is
> http://www.abstractmath.org/MM/MMConditi….
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>

Posted on Sunday, May 11th, 2008 at 6:04 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback