Heidegger

In a message dated 03/04/2008 10:20:42 GMT Standard Time, jPolanik at nc.rr.com
writes:

GEVANS613 at aol.com wrote:

>jPolanik@nc.rr.com writes:

>>at the end of the day, however, you still have to deal with your claim
>>that *any* I (of *any* reality type for which there are referents) may
>>conclude ‘I have not proven by evidence based logical deduction that I
>>am not nothing’.

>>I have shown that any such conclusion (irregardless of the reality
>>type of that which asserts it) is self-refuting — if one assumes
>>that attributing predicates to nothingness is *impossible*.

>>so, to save the argument by which you hope to confine non-heideggerian
>>philosophers to the quagmire of SIS, you must prove that it is
>>possible to attribute predicates to nothingness.

>Jud:

>The concept of *nothingness* is the particular mode of the human
>neurological system when it selects the word *nothing* as a nominal
>bereft of any denotatum in an attempt to denote the past, present and
>permanent absence of some unspecified entity or entities. The cognitive
>intellection *nothing* is ALWAYS used as a non-existent *other* (a
>heteron) for purposes of *comparing occupied rather than unoccupied
>space*. The problem is for the *neurologically challenged* is that
>they naively asume that the very process of employing this ontological
>device neurologically instantiates *nothing* by the very fact that it
>*appears to be* the opposite of *some thing*

>The key to understanding *nothing* is the be aware that *nothing* is
>not *the opposite* nor a direct or indirect *antonym* of *something.*

>As such is the case, no predication is possible in the case of the word
>*nothing.* Any predication *thought to be* attributed to the word
>*nothing* does not add to or provide any information about the concept
>of *nothing,* because *nothing* does not exist to be described, but
>merely adds to what can be said about the existential modality and
>neurological processes of he or she who thinks about the concept
>*nothing.*

your neurological speculations (in this and your other recent post) may
have some merit; and, perhaps, someday we will have a quantum
neurochemical explanation for basic features or philosophical ‘choices’.
but even then, as now, we will need the linguistic resources to be able
to discuss the illusion until it is seen as an illusion.

one of the oldest and most deeply rooted of philosophical illusions is
the belief that one may attribute predicates (ie properties, qualities,
attributes, etc.) to nothing. we have to have a way to say this even as
we acknowledge that, linguistically, the last word of my previous
sentence is a noun; and, therefore, it looks like I’ve just referred to
a thing.

Joe

Jud:
There is no requirement to enter into a domain of quantum neurochemical
explanations for an understanding of the basic features of thinking or making
philosophical ‘choices’ regarding whether *nothing* exists or not, nor any
other *decisions* for that matter. Choices are made on the basis of the relevant
experiential information being available. The *choice,* if standing on the
edge of a cliff, of whether to step out into the *nothingness* and the fact
that we decide not to that, suggests that there is a basic understanding by
the human brain that *nothing* does not exist and therefore cannot support
the weight of a human being. Even suicides who DO step out into the
nothingness, do so in the knowlege that it will not support them, and like Hamlet (if
he had decided that *not to be was best for him) they will crash down upon
the rocks below. Considered from a strict ontological rather than a poetic
point of view, Hamlet’s phrasing of the ontological alternatives involved in
committing suicide do not make sense. In spite of traditionalist opinion to the
contrary, there is no such thing as *Being* – it follows of course that
*non-being* does not exist either. One just cannot *not exist*. The suicide’s
aspirational condition of moving towards a new state of *not-being* is an
uncatchable transcendental bluebird which flutters away the nearer his rapidly
falling body gets to the rocks below. There is no state of not-being, as both
Parmenides and Einstein will rush to confirm. As it happens, and this may come as
a surprise, there is no state of *Being* either - only *becoming*. There is
only the state of being some changing THING. Pure existence without
*essences* and *properties* is a physical impossibility. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
either continues to exist as Hamlet Prince of Denmark, or the lifeless body of
Hamlet continues to exist as the bloodied decomposing corpse of the dead prince
sprawled upon the rocks below the castle walls. (In the play he actually
died in the castle as is well known.)

Setting aside the fact that actually what we would be doing if we did launch
ourselves over the edge would be to immerse ourselves in and rely upon a
cloud of oxygen gas to buoy us up. Everybody on earth [apart from the mentally
handicapped] understand that *nothing* does not exist and choose not to risk
walking over a cliff to prove otherwise.

The primitive, deeply rooted philosophical illusion probably originated from
the apparent *oppositeness* (rather than simple *otherness*) that is
characteristic of certain basic human conceptions. The opposite of hot is cold,
big and small, kind and cruel, beautiful and ugly etc. Primitive man
mistakenly assumed that in view of this apparent oppositional paradigm *some-thing*
must have an opposite called *no-thing.*

In other words the empty space where it would be possible for a *thing* to
be ( if such a space-filling thing existed) is reified with the name
*nothing.*
To the human understanding all material objects are positioned in space or
time. But neither space nor time are concrete things. If such human
imaginings did exist , there would be an infinite regress. Space would have to be
contained in another higher space. Time would be dated within another time.. The
realm of objects becoming other (updated) versions of themselves has no
place for the unsophisticated [naive] concept of *Being, * for no object can
ever *be* but rather only *become* (in human terms) a newer version of its
older self.

The concept of *Being* and *Nothing* has corrupted philosophy, and where
corruption is found in philosophy there is usually an oaf called Plato behind
it. The word *nothing* has wormed its way into human communication causing
ontological havoc. *There is *nothing* in the fridge* suggests that a heteronic
version of some [food] can be said to be in the empty fridge. *I have
*nothing* to say,* suggests the person is in possession of something called
*nothing* which they are either unwilling or unable to divulge. Heidegger, whose
naivity never ceases to astonish me even said *nothing nothings* [or words
to that effect] childishly comparing and trying to pass off as *philosophical*
a parlour-game play-on-words which compares *nothing nothings* to
genuine noun-verb combinatorial statements, such as *flowers flower* or *pins
pin,* cutters cut* *cooks cook* etc.

Jud

Posted on Thursday, April 3rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback