Heidegger

Michael Eldred wrote:

>Joseph Polanik schrieb

>>Michael Eldred wrote:

>>> Joseph Polanik schrieb

>>>>do you claim the power to attribute predicates to nothing(ness) or
>>>>do you not?

>>>>ME: You certainly claim the power to predicate something of nothing,
>>>>for you have named it, and even predicated that something is
>>>>distinct from nothing.

>>saying that something is not nothing says something about something
>>that is not nothing; hence, it is a legitimate predication.

>>consider two statements concerning the nature of predication:

>>A: predication is saying something about something

>>B: predication is saying something about something that is not
>>nothing.

>>I’ve previously expressed my view that [A] should be understood to
>>mean exactly what [B] appears to mean.

>>you’ve claimed that [B] is untenable; but, you never really gave an
>>example of a statement of predication that met [A] as you interpret it
>>without meeting [B] as I interpret it.

>>would you do that, now?

>ME: If something is not nothing, then, so too, nothing is not
>something, which is saying something about nothing. So your premiss B
>fails.

I agree that asserting ‘nothing is not something’ counts as saying
something about nothing; but, you haven’t proven that B has failed.
you’ve only proven that there is a *difference* between your
understanding of A and my understanding of B (which is also my
understanding of A).

I prefer B because it bans nonsense such as the claim ‘nothing is not
something’.

could you say something similar in the language of sets: if something is
not a member of the empty set; then, so too, a member of the empty set
is not something? are you allowed to say that even though there are no
members of the empty set about which you could say that?

suppose someone proved that an object weighing at least 5 Kg is not a
member of the empty set. would you be able to conclude that a member of
the empty set must weigh less than 5 Kg — even though there are no
members of the empty set for you to weigh?

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, June 8th, 2008 at 6:05 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback