Existence or Self-Existence?
June 8th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Existence or Self-Existence?** :: Probing CLouds…Introverting Involutions X :: Existence or Self-Existence?** :: Existence or Self-Existence?**
Schizo-Epistemology: Existence or Self-Existence?
Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>>>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:
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.
>You are simply refusing to address them.
until you clarify what your argument is about, there is nothing to
address except your vacuous (but tautological) claim that a vacuously
true proposition is a vacuously true proposition; and, I suspect that
most of us already knew that. list members who *didn’t* already know
that, raise your hands.
let us pause for a brief recap …
your crucial claim, Professor, seems to be that the proposition ‘I
remain self-identical throughout all my perceptions’ is a necessary
condition of my existence.
this proposition, your major premise, may be symbolized, as follows:
[1]: P -> Q
where
P = ‘I exist’ [where ‘I exist’ = ‘I am not nothing’]
Q = ‘I remain self-identical throughout all my perceptions’
you also claim that Q is false; so, your minor premise is:
[2]: -Q
given [2], the only way [1] can be true is if P is false; but, -P is an
absurdity: ‘I do not exist’ or ‘I am nothing’.
this is the second major clarification that we’ll need from you if we
are to regain forward momentum. are you actually advocating ‘I do not
exist’ or ‘I am nothing’?
if so; then, you must explain how, in the absence of any x that is not
nothing, there is something that can accurately assert ‘I am nothing’.
in short, can you prove: (Ex)(Nx & Ax) where:
E = existential quantifier
N = nothing
A = can accurately assert ‘I am nothing’.
thus, the translation: there is an x such that x is nothing and x can
accurately assert ‘I am nothing’.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
