Heidegger

Previously (Sat, 01 Dec 2007)

Dr. Fallacia:
however, you have asserted that “it is” and “I am” as employed in your
Axiomata demand complements and are used as copulas:

Joe:
I agree that ‘x is’, ‘it is’ and, more intensely, ‘I am’ already contain
a mystery: the copula has as an implicit complement that asserts something of
the subject; but, which predicate will make explicit that which is implicit —
without adding more than was implicit?”

Fallacia:
which flatly contradicts what you now claim, namely,

“in the CPI, ‘I know that I am; but, not what I am’,

there are two instances of the intransitive use of ‘am’”!!
Furthermore, Axiom 0 in your own version of it reads:

JUD’S ANALYSIS
(A) *There is a predicate, P, such that, for any x that is, x is P.*

Dr. Fallacia: “is” occurs three times here; “am” does not occur at all,
contrary to what you claim above.

Jud - Comment: Quite correct.

Dr. Fallacia:
*I presume you meant to say that in “Axiom 0, there is one instance of the
intransitive use” of the verb ‘to be’. In truth, there are two such
instances. “x is P” is a copular use of “is”.

“P is” employs “is” in its absolute signification.
“x is” employs “is” in its absolute signification.
What is the predicate in the sentence “P is”?

Jud’s Comment: Utter Rubbish.

ANALYSIS:

Axiom 0 consists of two separable ontological claims separated by an
adjectival clause.

Existential Claim 1. *There is a predicate, P, * (There is a predicate
which shall be designated P)
Here *there* acts as a pronoun used to introduce a clause or sentence:
Examples: There are numerous items. There must be another exit. Also used to
indicate an unspecified person in direct address as in: *Hello there.* The *is*
is a copuletic introductant which inserts *P* as the predicate of the
unspecified subject pronoun *there.*

*Such that* An adjective: of a degree or quality specified (by the `that’
clause)

Existential Claim 2. *For any X that is, X is P*

Very badly written and Dr. Fallacia’s criticism is correct.

What the hell is *For any X that is* supposed to mean? *For any X that is
-WHAT?* for Christ’s sake?

Dr. Fallacia: What is the predicate in the sentence “x is”? (Correction:
*for any X that is*) You have already denied above, by referring to “linguists”
, that “x is” or “P is” has a predicate, which means that your Axiom 0 in
part predicates nothing, i. e. “x is” ’says’ nothing ‘forth’ (L.
prae-dicare).

Comment:
Joe’s mistake in using the *for any X that is* is his lack of understanding
that in the term *I am* or the religious claim *God is.* it is only
admissible because the implicature of the nature of God’s existential modes (his
properties or essences) are ALREADY KNOWN *God is all powerful.**God is
good.* etc.

With an unknown variable such as X as used in: *for any X that is* NOTHING is
known about the variable other than it is referred to as *X*.

All this silliness could be avoided if Joe had structured his sentence
without the obfuscational *BE-word*

Thus:

*There exists a predicate we will call *P* such that
for any entity that exists, P acts as its predicate.*

Alles klart? This is what the fuss has been about. BTW - the exact nature
of that *P* is still up for grabs.

Dr. Fallacia:
That is absurd. “Is” is a “simple verb” in its absolute signification and
hence, according to the OED’s definition of predicate, is a perfectly good
predicate. Read the article at the end of this message.

Jud:
Only in the case of *God* (see above) and a few other cases, or when used as
a response to an antecedal question or statement such as

*Is you coat in the garden?*
*It is.

Dr. Fallacia:
Therefore your Axiom 0, in your casuistic interpretation of it, only makes a
silly pretence of not predicating the verb ‘to be’, i. e. being.

Jud:
Utter rubbish! The unmarked, bare infinitive form of the conjugation of
*be* accompanied by the particle *to* expressed as *to be * has NOTHING AT ALL
to do with the transcendentalist notion of the ontological difference
*BEING*. When accompanied by the particle it is often said to imply
intentionality, an unspecified futurity, or to designate some present or future state:

*He has gone to London to be an actor.* (he exists in a mode of going to
London)
*To be honest I have no idea.* (to exist in a mode of honesty)
*To be (alive) or not to be (alive) * (Shakespeare’s poetic implicatory
licence restored)
Compare the imperative: *Be quiet!* (exist is a mode of quietness)

INFINITIVES IN ENGLISH

_http://www.answers.com/topic/infinitive_
 http://www.answers.com/topic/infinitive)

English has three non-finite verbal forms, but by long-standing convention,
the term “infinitive” is applied to only one of these. (The other two are the
past- and present-participle forms, where the present-participle form is
also the gerund form.) In English, a verb’s infinitive is its unmarked form,
such as be, do, have, or sit, often introduced by the particle to. When this
particle is absent, the infinitive is said to be a bare infinitive; when it is
present, it is generally considered to be a part of the infinitive, then
known as the full infinitive (or to-infinitive), and there is a controversy about
whether it should be separated from the main word of the infinitive. (See
Split infinitive.) Nonetheless, modern theories typically do not consider the
to-infinitive to be a distinct constituent, instead taking the particle *to*
to operate on an entire verb phrase; so, to buy a car is parsed as to {buy {a
car}}, not as {to buy} {a car}.

The bare infinitive and the full infinitive are not generally
interchangeable, but the distinction does not generally affect the meaning of a sentence;
rather, certain contexts call almost exclusively for the bare infinitive, and
all other contexts call for the to-infinitive.

Huddleston and Pullum’s recent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language
(CGEL) does not use the notion of the infinitive, arguing that English uses the
same form of the verb, the plain form, in infinitival clauses that it uses in
imperative and present-subjunctive clauses.

USES OF THE BARE INFINITIVE
The bare infinitive is used in a rather limited number of contexts, but some
of these are quite common:
The bare infinitive is used as the main verb after the dummy auxiliary verb
do, or any modal auxiliary verb (such as will, can, or should), except that
ought usually takes a to-infinitive. So, “I will/do/can/etc. see it.” Several
common verbs of perception, including see, watch, hear, feel, and sense take
a direct object and a bare infinitive, where the bare infinitive indicates an
action taken by the main verb’s direct object. So, “I saw/watched/heard/etc..
it happen.” (A similar meaning can be effected by using the present
participle instead: “I saw/watched/heard/etc. it happening.” The difference is that
the former implies that the entirety of the event was perceived, while the
latter implies that part of the progress of the event was perceived.) Similarly
with several common verbs of permission or causation, including make, bid,
let, and have. So, “I made/bade/let/had him do it.” (However, make takes a
to-infinitive in the passive voice: “I was made to do it.”) The bare infinitive
is the dictionary form of a verb, and is generally the form of a verb that
receives a definition; however, the definition itself generally uses a
to-infinitive. So, “The word ‘amble’ means ‘to walk slowly.’” The bare infinitive form
is also the present subjunctive form and the imperative form, although most
grammarians do not consider uses of the present subjunctive or imperative to
be uses of the bare infinitive.

USES OF THE FULL INFINITIVE
The full infinitive (or to-infinitive) is used in a great many different
contexts:

Outside of dictionary headwords, it is the most commonly used citation form
of the English verb: “How do we conjugate the verb to go?” It can be used
like a noun phrase, expressing its action or state in an abstract, general way.
So, “To err is human”; “To know me is to love me”. (However, a gerund is
often preferred for this — “Being is doing” would be more natural than the
abstract and philosophical sounding “To be is to do.”[1)) It can be used like an
adjective or adverb, expressing purpose or intent. So, “The letter says I’m to
wait outside”, or “He is the man to talk to”, or “[In order) to meditate, one
must free one’s mind.” In either of the above uses, it can often be given a
subject using the preposition for: “For him to fail now would be a great
disappointment”; “[In order) for you to get there on time, you’ll need to leave
now.” (The former sentence could also be written, “His failing now would be a
great disappointment.”) It can be used after many intransitive verbs; in this
case, it generally has the subject of the main verb as its implicit subject..
So, “I agreed to leave”, or “He failed to make his case.” (This may be
considered a special case of the noun-like use above.) With some verbs the
infinitive may carry a significantly different meaning from a gerund: compare I
stopped to talk to her with I stopped talking to her, or I forgot to buy the
bread with I forgot buying the bread. It can be used after the direct objects of
many transitive verbs; in this case, it generally has the direct object of
the main verb as its implicit subject. So, “I convinced him to leave with me”,
or “He asked her to make his case on his behalf.” As a special case of the
above, it can often be used after an intransitive verb, together with a subject
using the preposition for: “I arranged for him to accompany me”, or “I
waited for summer to arrive.”

Posted on Tuesday, January 1st, 2008 at 9:15 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback