Heidegger

Axiom 0: Allegations of Demolition

Michael Eldred wrote:

>Joseph Polanik schrieb Fri, 28 Dec 2007

>>Axiom 0: (E P)(x)(Px).

>>translation: there is a predicate, P, such that, for any x that is, x
>>is P.

>By demolishing your Axiom 0, which pretends to open a question
>concerning a universal predicate (P) for all that is, I have shown that
>the predicate is always already predicated, namely, that, for all that
>is, one can say, it is (absolute signification of the verb ‘to be’).
>One can then either admit that one does not know philosophically what
>this ‘is’ means, or one can brush this question aside as trivial
>nonsense, and then proceed with one’s argument, deductions,
>propositions, etc. etc.

1. how exactly did you demolish Axiom 0?

you’ve previously declined a number of invitations to claim that Axiom 0
is false; and, limited yourself to claiming that it is trivially true.

are you now claiming that Axiom 0 is false; and, if so, just how did you
show that it is false; but, if not, just how did you ‘demolish’ Axiom 0
without actually claiming that it is false?

2. are you now restricting Axiom 0 to one predicate?

it is true that every time I assert ‘I am’ I assert that I am; but, how
does that make ‘am’ a predicate?

not so long ago you insisted that the phrase ‘there is a predicate’ in
Axiom 0 meant that there is at least one; and, since I claim that there
are at least three reasonable candidates in english alone, I agree.

so, what is the point of insisting that ‘am’ is itself a predicate? are
you now saying that no one else can generate any other Axiom 1 (x)(Px)
from Axiom (Schema) 0?

actually, it would be a stretch, I think, to translate (x)(Px) into ‘for
any x that is, x is’ which is what you seem to be doing by claiming that
‘x is’ or ‘I am’ is its own predicate — (x)(x).

3. admitting ignorance

I may deny that your self-serving invention of a grammatical rule
unknown to linguists (that ‘am’ is a predicate) disproves or otherwise
demolishes Axiom 0; but, I have no problem admitting ‘I don’t know what
“am” means’.

that after all is the point of the CPI: I know that I am; but, not what
I am.

just knowing that I am doesn’t tell me what I am; so, naturally, I ask
‘what am I?’. Axiom 0 answers that question; provided I make a choice
from among the available root predicates.

in a sense, then, I am self-defining; irregardless of who said what in
ancient greece.

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 Saturday, December 29th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback