Heidegger

Anthony Crifasi wrote:

>Joseph Polanik wrote:

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

>because we’re not talking about Heidegger right now, Joe. We’re talking
>about whether beginning with me as an individual leads to skepticism.
>I’ve said that numerous times now, Joe. You are clearly either unable
>to follow an argument, or are attempting rhetorical maneuvers in order
>to avoid addressing the arguments in Descartes’ First Meditation. Which
>is it?

>>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?

>You can ask it. You’ll just end up with a skeptical conclusion about
>your existence.

how could this possibly happen? you have undertaken to prove all that I
have undertaken to prove — and more.

I’m saying, “I-2 know that I-2 am; but, not what I-2 am”. specifically,
I-2 saying that I-2 do not know my own origin. you, on the other hand,
are claiming to know (to have evidence-based deductive proof) that “I-2
am really them”.

so, I’m skeptical of your claim that you have proof that ‘I am them’. if
you’ve got such a case, present it.

>Just like I argued in my last post (Hume), which you’ve
>decided not to address in this post.

>Since you have yet again fashioned your reply in a manner which does
>not address my previous arguments concerning it, this conversation has
>ceased being worth our time. Should your next reply actually address
>either (1) the skeptical arguments that Descartes gives in his First
>Meditation, or (2) the comments I made about Hume in my last post, then
>I will reply. Otherwise, this conversation is over.

why would I pick door #1? you’ve already conceeded that we can both
stand in the physical world (what I call existential reality and what
Heidegger calls world (usage 1)); so, that takes care of any first
meditation concerns that you have exempted Heidegger from addressing.

why would I pick door #2? you’ve already shown me its empty. your
recurring complaints that I’ve misrepresented your skeptical conclusion
are a smokescreen. as long as you are postulating the I-2 drawing a
conclusion (skeptical or otherwise) about itself, my reply is the same:
nothing unreal can draw a conclusion about itself. it doesn’t matter if
the conclusion is right or wrong. nothing unreal can draw any conclusion
(correct or incorrect) about itself.

I have no other comment on the Hume/Crifasi argument until you repair it
in the following ways:

1. you present some evidence or argument to demonstrate that premise 1
(I remain self-identical throughout all my perceptions) is true and is a
necessary condition of My existence (not nothingness) as you claim. your
whole argument is bogus if there is no support for its first premise

2. you address the point noted above: that any conclusion the I-2 draws
about itself (skeptical or otherwise) demonstrates its reality via some
variant of the first law of reality: nothing unreal is self-aware.

3. you support your attempt to define a ‘moment’ as having no actual
duration. neuroscientists treat the present moment or ‘now’ as having a
variable (but measureable duration); so, if you have to use an
idiosyncratic definition of moment to conclude an argument containing
the first two weaknesses, you’ll need to explain away the science.

* * *

now, here we are standing in the same physical world. here we are
experiencing this and that experience. here you are claiming you can
prove ‘I am really them’.

I’m calling your bluff.

state your case or fold up your tent.

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 Tuesday, March 25th, 2008 at 11:20 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback