Heidegger

Anthony Crifasi wrote:

>Joseph Polanik wrote:

>>Anthony Crifasi wrote:

>>>Step 1 is stated as a necessary condition of My existence - i.e., that
>>>I remain self-identical throughout all my perceptions. Denying that
>>>would be denying an identical referent for the identical first person
>>>pronoun that I use to refer to myself at any point in my life (I was
>>>born, I am now X, I will die).

>>I-2 reject the first and third of the examples you give. I-2 know that
>>I-1 was born and that I-1 will die;

>I-1 is a physical body, so given Descartes’ arguments in the First
>Meditation, how again do we “know” that there are any physical bodies
>at all?

given?

you’ve previously admitted that Heidegger does not accept Descartes’
arguments; so, what would make you think I should accept those arguments
as ‘given’?

perhaps it *is* time to move on. let’s just assume that you and I are
both standing in the world defined by Heidegger’s first usage of ‘world’
— it seems virtually identical to the notion of a physical universe
existing as a metaphenomenal reality independent of the experience I-2
have of it.

how do you justify the claim that I can not ask ‘what am I?’ while
standing in this world?

Joe

–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
 http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

Posted on Monday, March 24th, 2008 at 11:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback