Heidegger

Michael Eldred wrote:

>Joseph Polanik schrieb

>>Michael Eldred wrote:

>>>Joseph Polanik schrieb

>>>>the CPI is ontologically prior to the OD, which refers to beings AS
>>>>beings, because it is prior to the designation of ‘being’ as the
>>>>root predicate.

>>>>do you deny that the CPI is ontologically prior to the OD?

>>>ME: Your Confession of Partial Ignorance, “I know that I am; but not
>>>what I am.”, is an assertion, on the one hand, and a private
>>>confession on your part, on the other. (Insofar as it is merely a
>>>private opinion, it is removed from any philosophical inquiry.)

>>the part of the CPI that is an admission or confession of ignorance is
>>a subjective report of my state of knowledge; and, as such, has the
>>philosophical significance of a report of a sighting of a white crow:
>>it refutes the claim that all crows are black.

>ME: A “subjective report of my state of knowledge” is your own private
>matter, and has nothing to do with philosophy, for which a line of
>thinking must be “nachvollziehbar”, i.e. comprehensible also for the
>other.

I notice that you did not address the situation I posed: suppose someone
claims that all crows are black. my subjective report ‘I see a white
crow’ is relevant — because it refutes the claim that was made.

>Hearing the private confession of another is the business of a priest
>or a psychotherapist.

surely someone with two degrees in mathematics can construct a
counter-argument that does not depend on how one expands an acronym into
a phrase. suppose I translated ‘CPI’ as Claim of Partial Ignorance. your
comment about priests and psychotherapists is now irrelevant; but,
surely you have something better than that. what is it?

>>your claim is that I always already know that I am a being; and, I
>>claim I don’t know that to be true.

>ME: In the assertive part of your CPI you assert “I know that I am”,
>thus implicating “I” with “am” which, in turn, is a conjugation of
>”being”. So the “joining together” of “I” with “being” is already
>implied straight away by your original assertion. Are you now wanting
>to break the nexus between “I am” and “I am a being”? If so, you would
>have to show why “I am”, although implicated with being, does not imply
>that “I am a being”.

it is true that, in english (and, for all I know, many other languages),
the copula is a form of the verb to be. however, that is a linguistic
quirk. if your argument against the CPI is based on such a linguistic
quirk; then, it would be invalid if expressed in a language whose copula
derives from some word other than their equivalent of the verb to be.
surely you are not relying on an argument as culture-bound as that.

you are quite right in bringing to light what I have been trying to make
clear: ‘I am’ does *not* imply ‘I am a being’.

‘I am’ only implies ‘I am a(n) [root predicate]’.

in other words, ‘I am’ asserts the root predicate *as a variable*
whereas ‘I am a being’ asserts a particular root predicate, being.

>>>You take it as a starting-point for an inquiry. As such a
>>>starting-point, it is prior to everything that follows in the
>>>inquiry, but that does not make it ontologically prior to what is
>>>unearthed subsequently in such an inquiry.

>>I fully agree that what is ontologically prior is often discovered
>>subsequent to one’s ’starting’ point; but, you don’t seem to
>>understand that I am claiming that this principle also applies to you.

>ME: Nowhere have I asserted that the OD is the ontological
>starting-point. On the contrary, I have shown that questioning the
>presuppositions you have supposed in your CPI leads back to what is
>posited ontologically beforehand, namely, the phenomenon (not the
>”chosen” “root predicate”) of being itself, i.e. pure, unmediated,
>indeterminate presence. This originary phenomenon is not “chosen”, for
>there is no choice about it — questioning itself leads of itself to
>this originary phenomenon of the clearing seen by the mind’s eye.

I do not deny that this originary phenomenon is ontologically prior to
the language used to describe it. I am, however, saying that the
language used to describe this originary phenomenon as ‘being itself’
depends on the choice of ‘being’ as the root predicate.

I chose ‘reality’ (and cognate terms) as a root predicate; and, thus,
describe this originary phenomenon as ‘reality itself’,

someone who chooses ‘existent’ (and cognate terms) as a root predicate
would describe this originary phenomenon as ‘existence itself’,

>ME: In following your line of argument, which starts with the CPI
>(partly an assertion and partly a confession), there is nothing more to
>discover.

there is Axiom 0.

>I have pointed out several times already, the “vs.” between CPI and OD
>is entirely skew-whiff. They are not opposed, but on different planes
>altogether.

I agree that the CPI and the OD are on different levels.

>The ontological difference concerns how being comes over beings, thus
>enabling them to define themselves AS beings.

this is precisely why the Claim of Partial Ignorance is prior to the
Ontological Difference: all of these concerns depend on the choice of
‘being’ as a root predicate.

the CPI means that I don’t yet know whether I am a being or a reality or
an existent (or whatever).

it is only in choosing a root predicate that I become able to define
myself as a being or a reality or an existent (or whatever).

here is one *possible* logical reconstruction of the movement from the
CPI to the OD showing the assumption made by the OD that is not made by
the CPI.

1: I know that I am; but, not what I am.

2: what, then, am I?

[my thoughts meander about until Axiom 0 is brought to light].

3: I consult Axiom 0 and realize that I must choose a root predicate.

4: I choose ‘being’ as my root predicate and I now know that I am a
being. I can now consider the OD which considers the referent of ‘I’ in
its being and its relation to Being and so on.

of course, an individual could choose a different root predicate.
indeed, I personally prefer reality; and, so, at step 4 I conclude that
I am a reality.

>>the CPI is a statement of one’s knowledge and ignorance prior to the
>>*choice* of a root predicate. the OD assumes that choice is already
>>made.

>ME: There can be no “choice” here.

surely you jest.

you and I have different root predicates; so, obviously, there *is* a
choice.

Axiom 0 states only that there is a root predicate.

perhaps you are claiming that I am mistaken when I claim that Axiom 0
does not specify which predicate(s) qualify as a root predicate. if so,
show me how you prove, on the basis of Axiom 0, that ‘being’ is the one
and only root predicate.

perhaps you are claiming instead that Axiom 0 is false. if so, show us
how you prove that it is false.

perhaps you are claiming that there is some other axiom(s) on the basis
of which you conclude, not only that there is a root predicate; but,
that no one on earth may choose a root predicate other than the one you
prefer.

which is it?

Joe

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

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

Posted on Tuesday, November 20th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback