Escape From the Quagmire of SIS
March 30th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Who has Doomed Philosophy to the Quagmire of SIS? :: Who has Doomed Philosophy to the Quagmire of SIS? :: The Quagmire of SIS and Other Philosophical Catastrophes :: Who has Doomed Philosophy to the Quagmire of SIS?
Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>I showed that, given your own definitions, the skeptical conclusion
>>you derived from your set of premises is ‘I have not proven by
>>evidence based logical deduction that I am not nothing’.
>>I argue that any I which can can assert this skeptical conclusion
>>can continue ‘the fact that I can assert this proposition is itself
>>evidence from which I conclude that the proposition is false; and,
>>hence, I *have* proven by evidence based logical deduction that I am
>>not nothing.
>>that is the argument you must contest — once you stop dancing in the
>>shadows of your own denial system.
>>this version of my argument does not appeal explicitly or implicitly
>>to the first law of reality, ‘nothing unreal is self-aware’; and,
>>indeed, does not mention self-awareness at all.
>>if it is not intuitively obvious that the not nothingness of the I is
>>a necessary condition of the I’s ability to assert any conclusion at
>>all; then, the I may reason as follows:
>>* it is assumed by predicate logic that one can not attribute
>>predicates to nothingness.
>Please prove that assumption without appealing to your first law of
>reality.
no can do. the first law of reality rests on the assumption that one can
not attribute predicates to nothingness.
>(lol - adding this “assumption” just repeats the problem!)
no. acknowledging this assumption as an assumption solves the problem.
I admit that the skeptical conclusion derived from your set of three
premises can only be shown to be self-refuting if one assumes that that
one can not attribute predicates to nothingness.
so, unless you can find a flaw in every argument that is based on this
assumption and which shows that your premises lead to a self-refuting
conclusion; then, your only options are:
1. retract your skeptical conclusion until you revise your set of
premises; or,
2. deny the assumption.
but, there is no way to save your argument in its present form without
denying the assumption that one can not attribute predicates to
nothingness.
if it is so important to save your argument; then, just deny this
assumption.
go ahead. make my day.
>>* hence the predicate ‘not nothing’ is attributable to any x to which
>>any predicate at all may be attributed.
>>* from Crifasi’s set of three premises, I conclude ‘I have not proven
>>by evidence based logical deduction that I am not nothing’.
>>* the fact that I have drawn this (or any other) conclusion is
>>evidence that proves that I am capable of drawing conclusions.
>>* ‘capable of drawing conclusions’ is a predicate attributable to the
>>I; hence, the predicate ‘not nothing’ may also be attributed to the I.
>>* (therefore) I am not nothing.
Anthony,
you have yourself pointed out that anyone who googles our names will
likely notice our respective argumentative behavior. do you really want
your professional collegues to find you claiming the power to assign
predicates to nothingness?
regards,
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
