Is Dasein a Reality?
February 17th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Is Dasein a Reality? :: Is Dasein a Reality? :: Is Dasein a Reality? :: Is Dasein a Reality?
That Pete wrote:
>jPolanik wrote:
>>>[Heidegger, Martin. “Modern Science, Metaphysics and Mathematics” an
>>>except from _What is Thinking_ contained in _Martin Heidegger: Basic
>>>Writings_ by David F. Krell. 278-9 (emphasis in original)]
>>how does this essay help you prove that Axiom 0 is false?
>>as you may recall, Michael E declined even to allege that Axiom 0 is
>>false; and, never stated a case against its translation: there is a
>>predicate P, such that, for any x that is, x is P. nevertheless, if
>>you are claiming that Axiom 0 is false; then, you are free to state
>>your case.
>I am not disputing whether axioms are correct or not.
okay, that’s your choice.
>That would be decided purely in the context of the system within which
>those axioms are asserted.
more precisely, the correctness of an axiom would be decided in the
context of a system within which that axiom is asserted … or denied.
the relevance of this point to the present discussion of Heidegger’s
case against Descartes is simple: Descartes complies with Axiom 0. does
Heidegger?
let’s review.
Axiom 0: (E P)(x)(Px)
translation:
there is a predicate, P, such that: for any x that is, x is P.
now, you might ask, which predicate(s) satisfy Axiom 0. well, we always
already know of one because it is assumed by predicate logic itself. one
can not attribute predicates to nothingness; hence, for any x to which
we might assign any predicate *whatsoever*, we can also assign the
predicate ‘not nothing’. thus, ‘not nothing’ is universally
attributable.
let’s say you designate ‘being’ to carry the meaning ‘not nothing’. well
then, ‘being’ would satisfy Axiom 0. it would be universally
attributable: for any x that is, x is a being.
consequences:
1: there is nothing left over for ‘non-being’ to refer to.
schematically: the word whose morphology indicates that it means
not-[root predicate] has no referent.
2: there is nothing left over to which predicates may be attributed
predication = saying something about something that is not nothing.
so, Pete, looking out from within your own viewpoint, is Heideggerian
philosophy consistent with or inconsistent with Axiom 0?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
