[epistemology] Discovery vs Disclosure
November 8th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: [epistemology] Discovery vs Disclosure :: Symptoms as Evidence :: Discovery vs Disclosure :: Discovery vs Disclosure*
Georges Metanomski wrote:
> No being _is_ without showing itself _as_
> such-and-such
> =============
> G:
> Some people say that “being” (noun) is an illegal
> and meaningless inflection of the copula “be”.
>
> Still, how would an Arab or a Hebrew say “No being
> _is_
> without showing itself…” when their languages lack
> the verb “to be”?
a good question Georges; but, remember that this comment occurred in a
context (Heideggerian philosophy) in which there are reasonable grounds
for saying that ‘being’ is used as the root predicate (as defined by
Axiom 0 with which you are familiar).
[Axiom 0: there is a predicate, P, such that: for any x that is, x is P.
further analysis: http://what-am-i.net/lor_foundation.htm]
in any event, Georges, you seem to have some knowledge of these
languages; so, tell us, in all these centuries, has no one found a way
to translate ’si fallor, sum’ or ‘cogito; ergo, sum’ into arabic and hebrew?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
