Heidegger Email List

April 15th, 2008, search related
Related posts :: Assumptions About Predicating Nothingness :: Behold the Power of Attributing Predicates to Nothingness! :: Behold the Power of Attributing Predicates to Nothingness! :: Behold the Impossibility of Attributing Predicates to Nothingness!

GEVANS613 at aol.com wrote:

>jPolanik@nc.rr.com writes:

>the real question remains: are the predicates I attribute to the
>referent of ‘I’ attributed to nothing or to something that is not
>nothing?

>Jud: Another outbreak of the philosophical fidgets. This is an equally
>falacious statement I am afraid. There is no such thing as *something
>which is not nothing,* for there is no such thing as *nothing* (or a
>*non-thing*) that can be used referentially to denote something that
>*you* or *I* is not.

>You have simply fallen into the metaphysical mistake-trap called
>*Plato’s Heteron*

I disagree for the reason I mentioned in my reply to another of your
posts on this topic. the language within which philosophical discourse
takes place must allow any participant to point out that another
participant is attempting to attribute predicates to nothing.

this goes to the nature of predication. you might recall that Michael E
many times defined predication as saying ’something about something’ —
but rejected my attempt to clarify predication as saying ’something
about something that is not nothing’. so, I conclude that some see a
real difference between these two definitions (although my point is that
there should not be any difference between them).

now, in a recent post, Michael E claims, “So even the simplest of
statements states that something is what it is not, and this is
necessary if the statement is not to be a mere tautology. With ‘not’,
the ‘nothing’ so vilified by common-sensical analytical minds already
raises its ugly head.”

the language of philosophical discourse must allow anyone to point out
that any claims that the ‘Nothing’ has raised its ugly head is
attributing predicates to Nothing (even if expressed in metaphorical
language).

Joe


Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
 http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.