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?
Joseph Polanik wrote:
> >>* 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.
Done.
So now, why do you assert it rather than deny it? (without appealing to
your first law of reality, of course)
> >>* 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?
You’re right. I’d better fix that now:
Philosophy requires reasons or evidence for what one asserts. Therefore,
until further reasons or evidence are given for said assertion,
Polanik’s acceptance of it is unphilosophical.
There, all better.
