Heidegger vs Descartes
February 14th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: The Oddness of the OD :: desCartes’ “I Am” vs daSein’s “I Am”. :: desCartes’ “I Am” vs daSein’s “I Am”. :: The Relationship between Axiom and Translation
Georges Metanomski wrote:
>Joseph Polanikwrote:
>>I am hoping this post will provoke discussion on at least these two
>>points:
>>* has the extent of the common ground been correctly described; or,
>>have I included too much or too little?
>>* how can Heidegger focus his case against the ‘cogito sum’ (or
>>cartesian thinking, generally) so that his own conclusion about
>>dasein survive undamaged?
>======================
>COGITO OF DESCARTES
>”I think therefore I am”, taken verbatim is a meaningless jumble,
>empty copula “am”, calling at best the question “what am I, mincemeat?”
>However, a genius may be accorded a licentia poetica and “Cogito”may
>be understood as a rhetoric shortcut for:
>”Nothing I think about is certain I doubt it all, yet it’s certain
>that I doubt, thus that I think, that I am aware of thinking”.
>So understood, Cogito created modern Science and Epistemology,
>founding them in subjectivity, and contradicting the traditional
>”objectivity”. It is restricted to Epistemology and has no ontological
>impact. Therefore contrasting it with Heidegger’s, or any Ontology is
>incongruous.
in a so-called existential construction, the copula is not empty;
rather, its complement is implicit. in certain interesting cases the
implicit complement may even be a kind of variable.
consider the statement, ‘there is an even prime number’. this statement
asserts that an even prime number *is*; but, doesn’t make any claim
about the reality type of the number 2.
as you no doubt know, mathematicians have long debated whether
mathematical ‘objects’ are merely phenomenological realities (concepts)
or whether they are ontological realities that ‘be’ in the heaven of
ideal platonic forms.
the statement, ‘there is an even prime number’, only asserts *that*
there is this number; but, takes no position as to *what* type of
entity it is, phenomenological or ontological.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
