Heidegger

Joseph Polanik wrote:

> >>”I’m asking whether your argument negating, IPN, ‘it is Impossible to
> >>attribute Predicates to Nothing(ness)’, is equivalent to proving PPN,
> >>’it is Possible to attribute Predicates to Nothing(ness)’.”
>
> >>is that what you say you have achieved with an allegedly rational
> >>argument whose major premise is derivable from ‘I do not exist’ and
> >>whose minor premise guarantees that the major premise is either false
> >>or vacuous?
>
> >>until you at least tell us this, we might not have a clear idea of
> >>what your argument is about, if anything.
>
> >This explanation will be forthcoming as soon as you demonstrate basic
> >dialectical etiquette by addressing the objections from Descartes and
> >Hume that I cited here:
>
> you don’t seem to get the concept, Professor. it is your argument that
> is being critiqued. if Descartes and Hume have objections to your
> argument; then, you address those objections. if Descartes and Hume are
> objecting to something else; then, those objections will have to wait
> until their relevance has been established.

Their relevance to your arguments was cited and explained here:
 http://an-archos.com/pipermail/heidegger…

You are simply refusing to address them. Demonstrate such reciprocity,
and you will then receive it.

> whatever else ‘dialectical etiquette’ might mean, surely it requires
> that you tell us what you are talking about, if anything.

See above citation.

> surely, you can tell us whether you are claiming that your major premise
> is vacuous rather than false — and what grounds you have for making
> this claim.

See end of the reply cited above.

> there are also the other clarifications that you would have to make
> before one can understand what, if anything, you are talking about.

The Humean and Cartesian arguments are perfectly understandable to
anyone who has studied basic first year philosophy. If I am mistaken in
assuming that of you, I apologize.

> I’ve
> mentioned these points in recent posts if you are inclined to address
> them.

Yes you have. And you will receive my reply once you demonstrate basic
reciprocity. See citation above.

> I would also like to point out that you appear to be redefining some of
> your terms in mid-argument. by itself, that’s the expected outcome of a
> critique; but, I suspect that ‘dialectical etiquette’ would prompt you
> to let us know you are doing this.
>
> at the beginning of this argument you stated that ‘I remain
> self-identical throughout all my perceptions’ is ‘a necessary condition
> of my existence’
>
> however, on 2008-04-28 you claimed “I have never said that Q [’I remain
> self-identical throughout all my perceptions’] is undeniable. I have
> only argued that it is a necessary implication of self-existence. You
> are demonstrating a lack of basic skills in following an argument.”
>
> how did ‘my existence’ become transformed into ’self-existence’?

You will receive a perfectly clear explanation of that as soon as you
demonstrate reciprocity regarding the replies I have already given. See
above citation.

> at the outset of the argument we agreed that ‘exists’ could be
> defined simply as ‘not nothing’. is all existence in the sense of ‘not
> nothingness’ now self-existence.
>
> what do you mean by ’self-existence’?
>
> traditionally, ’self-existence’ is ascribed only to god. self-existence
> is “Inherent existence; existence possessed by virtue of a being’s own
> nature, and independent of any other being or cause; — an attribute
> peculiar to God.”
>  http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning…]
>
> surely when you said that ‘I remain self-identical throughout all my
> perceptions’ is ‘a necessary condition of my existence’ you weren’t
> speaking as God. so not all existence is self-existence. so maybe you
> should tell us whether you’ve redefined your terms or decided to retool
> your argument or what

See above.

Posted on Sunday, June 8th, 2008 at 6:04 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback