Heidegger

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Joseph Polanik wrote:

> >>>>we’re discussing *your* argument; and, it seems that you have
> >>>>modified it by introducing a new term, ’self-existence’. any
> >>>>*counter-arguments* I might have had to past versions of your
> >>>>argument might need to be modified to become applicable to the
> >>>>latest version of your argument. any Cartesian or Humean objections
> >>>>to my *counter-arguments* might themselves need modification after
> >>>>the relevancy of those objections is re-established.
>
> >>>Please show precisely exactly how the relevance of the other
> >>>Cartesian and Humean arguments I gave … is in any way affected by
> >>>that. Please be very specific - go through each of those arguments
> >>>and demonstrate how each of them specifically is so logically related
> >>>to the part to which you replied that their relevancy is affected by
> >>>it.
>
> >>no, Professor. I’m not going to do that.
>
> >Please explain your refusal - more precisely, please explain how
> >specifically you know that my arguments from Descartes and Hume relate
> >to the other part of my argument. From your past behavior, it’s pretty
> >clear that you don’t know that at all, and are simply using the other
> >part of my argument as an excuse to not address them.
>
> I don’t know how — or even *whether* — your arguments from Descartes
> and Hume relate to the ‘other part’ of your argument; and, I will not
> address them until I do.

Then that would conflict with your claim above that you don’t have to
address my other earlier arguments yet because the one part of my
argument that you wish to address would affect the other parts that
you do not wish to address.

Once you begin to fib, it’s difficult to keep your story straight.

> >All very legitimate questions - about that one part of my argument.
> >The other 80% is still left unaddressed. … Once before you did
> >finish replying to my arguments before that point, and when you did, I
> >promptly replied to all your previous replies,
>
> no, you didn’t.
>
> you continued to ignore (among other issues) every question I’ve ever
> posed about apparent inconsistencies between your position and
> Heidegger’s.

As you’ve been told many times, I addressed your knowledge of Heidegger here:
 http://an-archos.com/pipermail/heidegger…

You have yet to demonstrate any improvement in your ability to conduct
any discussion about fundamental Heideggerian concepts since that
time. Until there is such evidence, your continual insistence on such
a discussion unfortunately does not change those facts.

> but, these questions are on hold for now; so, don’t try to go back and
> answer them just yet. until you’ve clarified what your argument is
> about, it is not clear that these arguments from Heidegger are any more
> or any less relevant than those from Descartes and Hume that are also on
> hold.

Unfortunately, your refusal to address my other Cartesian and Humean
arguments long predates this recent “confusion” on your part about my
argument. So in lieu of any evidence on your part that my Cartesian
and Humean arguments in any way depend on the one part of my argument
to which you have replied, there is absolutely no reason to think that
your recent “confusion” is anything other than your latest excuse for
your longstanding pattern of ignoring most of my arguments. Nor am I
the only one who has noticed this:
 http://an-archos.com/pipermail/heidegger… http://groups.google.com.by/group/fa.ana…

Should you wish to fulfill basic dialectical etiquette by addressing
the other 80% of my arguments, as you did once before (after which I
addressed your replies), you will find them here:
 http://an-archos.com/pipermail/heidegger…

Either way, you will receive the response that you deserve.

Posted on Sunday, June 8th, 2008 at 6:07 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback