Heidegger

GEVANS613 at aol.com wrote:

>In a message dated 09/11/2008 jPolanik at nc.rr.com writes:

>Joe: the difference between ‘I am deceived’ and ‘I am mistaken’ is
>insignificant; but; the difference between ‘I am’ and ‘I am alive’ *is*
>significant. in ‘I am alive’ the copula is complemented with something
>other than the root predicate; consequently, ‘I am alive’ claims
>additional knowledge as to what I am (a living thing) not just that I
>am.

>Jud: Obviously an exanimate piece of human meat would not be able to
>think or utter the words ‘I am alive.’ … [or] mouth silly, illogical
>redundancies like: I think therefore I am (or even worse: I experience
>therefore I am).

>Joe: yes. ‘I allege that I am alive; therefore, I am alive’ is a
>self-verifying performative argument. the fact that I can make the
>self-referencing allegation ‘I am alive’ demonstrates that it is true.

>Jud: NO! It is not a question of *I allege* that I am alive. You could
>not BE ALIVE in the first place if you could not generate the sentence
>involved (or any sentence for that matter.)

[Joe (new)]: I could not generate that statement for you to hear/read
unless my body was alive; but, it is not yet proven that I am identical
to my body; so, ‘allege’ is the correct word.

>You do not seem to grasp that humans DO NOT NEED to *perform* in the
>way the mystic Jesuitically brain-washed Descartes did (and you do
>three hundred years later.)

[Joe (new)]: we need to discuss the performative aspects of arguments if
we want to evaluate the Cogito and the Experiento arguments.

>[Jud]: Are you Joe Polanik? - *Yes, I am* (where the predication is
>antecedently stated and merely confirmatory, means to repeat it would
>be a redundancy)

[Joe (new)]: I have no objection to implicitizing the redundant
material; providing, that it is possible to explicitize said material
when necessary or desirable.

>[Jud]: Any sentence ending in the universal quantifiers *is, are and
>am* have hidden, implicit, subject-bound referential predicates. The
>precise scope of which lie with the addressee.

[Joe (new)]: I agree that a statement like ‘I am’ must have an implicit
complement which, when explicitized, would function in the way you
describe. the explicitized complement becomes a predicate referring to
the subject, the referent of ‘I’.

[Joe (new)]: however, it sounds like you have redefined ‘universal
quantifier’. a statement like ‘I am’ is more like an existentially
quantified statement; particulaly after one explicitizes the implicit
complement. ‘I am’ = ‘I am an existent’. this would be treated as an
existentially quantified statement: There is an x such that x is an
existent and I am that x.

>[Jud]: Thus the complexity of God’s implicit existential modes is
>different from believer to believer.

[Joe (new)]: how could God have an existential modality? you’ve
indicated that only existing existents exist; that existing existents
only exist as matergy; and, that only an existing existent can have an
existential modality. so, most of those who believe that there is a God
would be alleging that God has no existential modality as you define
that term.

[Joe (new)]: have you redefined the word ‘God’ so that it can only refer
to a physical object contrary to the stated intention of many who use
that word to refer to a being that is not an existent existing only as
matergy?

>[Jud]: the utterer of any word (never mind logical redundancies like
>*I think therefore I am* is more aware of anyone else in the cosmos of
>his/her existential modalities (the way he/she exists)

>[Joe]: in any event, if the statement ‘I am’ is expanded to explicitize
>the implicit complement of the naked copula, we would get one of the
>following:

>’I am’ = ‘I am an existent (of some sort)’
>’I am’ = ‘I am a reality (of some sort)’
>’I am’ = ‘I am a being (of some sort)’

>Jud: The *of some sort* is total childish crap!!! EVERYBODY ON EARTH
>KNOWS THEY ARE HUMAN - and whether they are male or female (or
>somewhere in between, Chinese or Danish, white or black etc.

>Joe: we have to add the qualifier ‘(of some sort)’ because of the
>ambiguity as to the mode of being/existence/reality of the referent of
>’I’.

>Jud: NO WE DO NOT - you are writing TOTAL CRAP!!! There is NOTHING at
>all *ambiguous* about being human and knowing it.

[Joe (new)]: we don’t expect a chemist to say “this stuff is gold; and,
that’s all we need to know; so, stop asking about the internal structure
(if any) of a gold atom”. why would anyone abort an inquiry as to the
structure of a human as soon as they learn that ‘human’ is the name we
give our species?

inquiring minds want to *know*.

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 Sunday, November 16th, 2008 at 7:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback