Heidegger

Cologne 30-Dec-2007

Joseph Polanik schrieb Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:29:54 -0500:

> Axiom 0: Allegations of Demolition
>
> 2. What is a Predicate?
>
> >>JP: 1. how exactly did you demolish Axiom 0?
>
> >ME: By showing that it already has predicate.
>
> >ME: Read the OED under “predicate”: “2. a. Gram. The statement made
> >about a subject, including the logical copula ….”
>
> the OED/SE has two relevant entries. let’s look at the complete text of
> them.
>
> ===
>
> 1. Logic. What is affirmed or denied of the subject of a proposition by
> means of the copula (eg. ‘my father’ in ‘this man is my father’).

ME: Note that this first definition contradicts 2[a]. That indicates a
muddledness in the Anglo mind that has had its philosophical consequences.

> 2[a]. Grammar. The part of a sentence or clause containing what is said
> about a subject, including the logical copula (eg. ‘went home’ in ‘John
> went home yesterday’), but sometimes excluding any adjunct (’yesterday’
> in the example).
>
> [2]b. Math & Logic. An assertion or relation in the absence of any
> specified term or terms (eg. ‘is greater than’); a propositional
> function.
>
> ===
>
> in meaning 1. the predicate ‘this man is my father’ is said to be just
> ‘this man’ — the copula is *excluded* from the predicate.
>
> in meaning 2a: the copula is *included* in the predicate. a better
> example, one that used ‘is’ for better parallelism with the other two
> examples, would be to define ‘is my father’ as the predicate in ‘this
> man is my father’. this would be more like the meaning of 2b where the
> copula ‘is’ is included in the predicate.
>
> the point is that in *not one* of these examples is ‘is’ alone
> considered a predicate.

ME: If you choose your examples to exclude the “absolute signification” (OED
+ Webster’s) of ‘to be’ (e.g. ‘It is:’ or ‘The tree is.’) then, surprise,
surprise, the examples will not have “‘is’ alone
considered as a predicate”. Your tendentiousness can’t be beat. So you are
denying that ‘The tree is.’ in the sense of ‘The tree exists.’ is proper
statement in itself, in which ‘Is’ in its “absolute signification” is
predicated of ‘the tree’? If so, I’d say you don’t understand English.

>
> JP: if your claim to have demolished Axiom 0 is based on the allegation
> that
> the OED defines ‘is’ as a predicate; then, you might need to try again.

ME: The OED’s definition 2[a].of the ‘predicate’ is perfectly compatible
with, i.e. it INCLUDES inter alia, the simple example ‘It is.’, where “is”
is used in its “absolute signification” as the predicate of the subject
“It”. If the sentence only has a conjugation of the verb ‘to be’ as its
predicate, well, that IS its predicate IN ACCORDANCE with.definition 2[a].
You seem not only to deny that ‘to be’ has an “absolute signification”, but
also to have lost your formal logical powers. With such obstinacy you put
your intellectual credibility at risk. The alternative is to put your
axiomatic system at risk by admitting that ‘It is’ is a complete sentence in
itself (without any implied complement). This sentence says almost
‘nothing’, and therefore rationalists like yourself dismiss it, and even
deny that the world’s most authoritative English dictionary, the OED, is
talking sense about our English language when it provides an “absolute
signification” of the verb ‘to be’, and relegates the ‘copula’ signification
of the verb ‘to be’ only to its THIRD signification.

Thus does a question of import concerning the way our Western world shapes
up become reduced to a question of whether one can read and understand an
authoritative English dictionary, and whether one admits that the statement,
“For all that is, it can be said, that it is.”, is a valid statement. It is
fitting that we get no further than this latter, simple question, for that
is invariably the way in which the question concerning being is avoided,
i.e. declared meaningless, null and void.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred (c)_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Posted on Sunday, December 30th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback