Allegations of Demolition
December 30th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: Allegations of Demolition -(2)- :: Allegations of Demolition -(3)- :: Allegations of Demolition (2) :: Allegations of Demolition
Cologne 30-Dec-2007
Joseph Polanik schrieb Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:56:01 -0500:
> 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.
>
> JP: 1. how exactly did you demolish Axiom 0?
ME: By showing that it already has predicate.
>
> JP: 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’.
ME: Read the OED under “predicate”:
“2. a. Gram. The statement made about a subject, including the logical copula
…..”
So much for me allegedly inventing “a grammatical rule”.
If you genuinely do not know what “am” means philosophically, then you
presumably must be interested in the question concerning being. And yet you
are fixated on “reality” as a so-called “root predicate”, and you proceed
simply with the question “What am I”, which presupposes that you already know
what “am” means. Your axiomatic system is a closed system of
pseudo-questioning that already has its ready answers, at the price of
ignorantly overlooking what it already presupposes, namely, the predication
of being (”is” and “am”).
> JP: 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.
ME: You really don’t allow yourself to learn anything at all from the ancient
Greeks, such as Plato and Aristotle, do you?
Only with an inkling for the question concerning being can one
even begin to faintly and waveringly make out what the greats in philosophy,
such as Plato and Aristotle, Hegel and Heidegger, have in view. Otherwise,
Plato’s phrase, _gigantomachia peri taes ousias_ (”a battle of giants over
being”) remains a bit of quaint literary hyperbolae which a smug, modern,
rational, clear-thinking ‘philosopher’ smiles at and passes over.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred (c)_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
