Heidegger

>Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >ME: If one has already accepted predicate logic as given, then Axiom 0
> >is trivially true. But I do not accept predicate logic as given, nor
> >the concept of truth/falsity that pertains to predicate logic. For the
> >sake of argument, I have shown that even allowing Axiom 0 to stand
> >still leads to being. But more philosophically, I have already
> >indicated why Axiom 0 cannot be accepted as a self-evident axiom: one
> >has to go back to the originary phenomena. There it can be seen that
> >the subject/predicate structure breaks down and that the question,
> >”what?”, let alone the question, “what am I?”, again becomes malleable,
> >full of mystery.
>
>the question ‘what am I?’ never ceased to be full of mystery. why?
>because I know that I am; but, not what I am.

An oversimplification:

How can you know “that” you are without presuming a “what” standing
behind or inside the “that”? And, it seems to me, that the
presumption of substance inevitably undermines the mystery, which
then remains only a pose. The only means of actually preserving the
mystery in its most entertaining form( so we can be sure it’s the
real thing) is simply to keep to the question: Why is there
something rather than nothing? Almost every time I remind my
introductory class of that question, we are able to immediately, for
the moment, once again, discover philosophy. And then we can go on.

Regards,

Allen

>
>BTW, what do you accept instead of predicate logic and what concept of
>truth/falsity does it use?
>
>Joe
>
>
>
>–
>Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
>first person. — H-N Castaneda
>
>@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
>  http://what-am-i.net
>@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
>
>_______________________________________________
>heidegger mailing list
>heidegger@an-archos.com
>http://an-archos.com/mailman/listinfo/heidegger_an-archos.com
>http://heidegger.an-archos.com/

Posted on Saturday, November 24th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback