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?**
Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Schizo-Epistemology: Existence or Self-Existence?
>>Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>>>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.
>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.
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.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
