Assumptions About Predicating Nothingness
April 21st, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Unacknowleged Consequences :: Assumptions About Predicating Nothingness :: Assumptions About Predicating Nothingness :: Predicating Nothingness vs Not Predicating Being
Assumptions About Predicating Nothingness
Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>>In your post of 2008-04-03, you acknowledged that you were trying to
>>disprove the assumption that one may not attribute predicates to
>>nothingness.
>>for the benefit of future googlers, the relevance of this assumption
>>is quite simply this: having established ‘I am’ have I established ‘I
>>am not nothing’? well, yes — provided that when attributing
>>predicates to ‘I’ (eg that I experience or that I am capable of
>>experiencing) I am attributing predicates to something rather than to
>>nothing.
>>So, Anthony, if you want to claim that I have not proven that I am not
>>nothing; then, you have to *either* admit assuming that *you* can
>>attribute predicates to nothingness, *or* present your proof that this
>>is possible.
>Sure, let me “prove” this using the Joseph Polanik maneuver:
>1. I assert that I can attribute predicates to nothingness.
>2. But I don’t have to address how I prove or know this, since all I
>have to do is point out that Joseph Polanik hasn’t proven that this is
>impossible, but only continually asserts it.
>3. Therefore, by Joseph Polanik’s mode of argument, I can attribute
>predicates to nothingness.
this is a good start toward achieving intellectual integrity. bravo!
I have no objection to 1 or 3; but, 2 is a complete fabrication.
[JP, 2008-03-20]:
[I make] “the assumption that one can not attribute predicates to
nothingness”.
I admit that the skeptical conclusion derived from your set of three
premises can only be shown to be self-refuting if one assumes that that
one can not attribute predicates to nothingness.
so, unless you can find a flaw in every argument that is based on this
assumption and which shows that your premises lead to a self-refuting
conclusion; then, your only options are:
1. retract your skeptical conclusion until you revise your set of
premises; or,
2. deny the assumption.
but, there is no way to save your argument in its present form without
denying the assumption that one can not attribute predicates to
nothingness.
[JP, (new material)]:
it’s time to stop stonewalling, Anthony.
why don’t you just admit that you assume that you have the power to
attribute predicates to nothingness?
if you don’t, your argument goes down with the House of Usher.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
