Cutting Thru the Cloud of Verbiage
April 21st, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Axiom 0 and its Translation (1) :: Tags :: Broken Tools :: Causal Agent or Causal Object?
Cutting Thru the Cloud of Verbiage
Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>>>>>1. If I know that predicates are attributable to me, then I must
>>>>>know that I exist.
>>>>>2. If I know that I exist, I must know that there is something
>>>>>which remains identical throughout all my perceptions.
>>>>>3. But there is no evidence that anything remains identical
>>>>>throughout all my perceptions.
>>>>>4. Therefore, I don’t know that I exist.
>>>>>5. Therefore I don’t know that predicates are attributable to me.
>>>>>Both antecedents (in #1 and #2) are negated by modus tollens.
>>>>As before, you have reached a self-refuting conclusion. the fact
>>>>that you draw conclusion 5 proves ‘I am capable of drawing
>>>>conclusions’. this statement contains a predicate. which proves that
>>>>I attribute predicates to the referent of ‘I’.
>>>which is the antecedent in premise 1. which therefore leads to an
>>>endless logical paradox, unless and until you address premise 3.
>>>which you haven’t done yet.
>>there is no logical paradox; just a blatant contradiction that is
>>removed by rejecting one or more of your premises.
>>I have addressed your premise 3. I have expressed my skepticism of it.
>>let me summarize and extend my critique of this premise.
>>as flawed as is your attempt to justify -B for purposes of
>>perpetrating a modus tollens on premise 2, premise 2 is itself absurd.
>>you have justified premise 2 by the claim it is a “necessary condition
>>of My existence - i.e., that I remain self-identical throughout all my
>>perceptions”.
>LOL - he’s now clipped out my FURTHER argument for that premise FIVE OR
>SIX TIMES IN A ROW! For the sixth or seventh time, here it was:
>>>LOL - my answer is and WAS: “Denying that would be denying an
>>>identical referent for the identical first person pronoun that I use
>>>to refer to myself at any point in my life (I was born, I am now X, I
>>>will die).”
>>>So my argument explicitly appealed to the IDENTITY of the first
>>>person pronoun - i.e., that you have yet to produce any reason
>>>whatsoever for the continued identity of the first person pronoun if
>>>its referent were to lack a continued identity.
>you have yet again chosen to simply ignore that part of my argument,
you are once again misrepresenting the history of this thread. I have
commented on several aspects of this portion of your argument;
including:
1: the extreme claim that the proposition, ‘I remain self-identical
throughout all my perceptions’ is a ‘necessary condition of My
existence’.
2: the claim that the proposition, ‘I remain self-identical
throughout all my perceptions’ has been proven true at all.
I replied to each of these issues separately; because, after all, they
are separate claims. a proposition can be contingently true without
being necessarily true. do you not agree?
so, I’m going to summarize the counterarguments I’ve made to each of
these claims; showing, where applicable, your failure to respond to
those counterarguments.
Nota Bene: I’m replying separately to each claim in separately titled
threads. that way, in the unlikely event that future googlers happen
upon an archive of this email exchange, it will be much easier for them
to accurately assess who is failing to respond to which arguments.
I will also continue to post regarding other issues such as the
fundamental absurdity underlying your whole position: the assumption
that you may attribute predicates to nothingness.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
