Is there an Implicit Complement to be Found?
January 9th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Has The Implicit Complement Been Found? :: Is there an Implicit Complement to be Found? :: Is there an Implicit Complement to be Found? :: Are you Denying that the Copula can have an Implicit Complement?
GEVANS613 at aol.com wrote:
>
> *JP: are you (finally) admitting that the copula can have an implicit
> complement?
>
> ME: What’s there to admit? I’ve already said so. By definition, the copula
> ALWAYS has a grammatical complement, whether explicit or suppressed.*
> *
> The verb ‘to be’ in its absolute, existential signification, however has no
> grammatical complement whatsoever.*
>
> *Jud:*
> *I final throwaway admittance of what I have been claiming on this list
> for 7 or 8 years. God you are slow on the uptake!*
> **
> *The the *is* ALWAYS has a grammatical complement, (predicate) whether
> explicit or suppressed because it*
> *NEVER bespeaks of pure existential presence and ALWAYS refers the
> existential modality of an already instantiated subject.*
> **
> *Heidegger of course was far to dim to come to this understanding. This
> is an account in his own words of him *throwing in the Towel.**
> **
very interesting. where is this passage from?
> *Heidegger:
> How many times a day do I use this inconspicuous word “is, ” and not
> only in relation to the weather? But what would come of our taking care
> of daily business if each time, or even only one time, I were to
> genuinely think of the “is” and allow myself to linger over it, instead
> of immediately and exclusively involving myself with the respective
> beings that affect our intentions, our work, our amusements, our hopes
> and fears? I am familiar with what is, beings themselves, and I
> experience that they are. But the “is” -where in all the world am I
> supposed to find it, where am I supposed to look for something like this
> in the first place?
>
>
> Where am I supposed to look for something like this in the first place?
>
>
> /”The leaf is green.*/ I find the green of the leaf in the leaf itself.
> But where is the “is”? I say, nevertheless, the leaf “is”- it itself,
> the leaf. Consequently the “is” must belong to the visible leaf itself.
> But I do not “see” the “is” in the leaf, for it would have to be
> coloured or spatially formed. Where and what “is” the “is”?
>
> The question remains strange enough. It seems to lead to an empty
> hair-splitting, a hair-splitting about something that does not and need
> not trouble us. The cultivation of fruit trees takes its course without
> thinking about the “is, ” and botany acquires information about the
> leaves of plants without otherwise knowing anything else about the “is.
> ” It is enough that beings are. Let’s stay with beings; wanting to think
> about the “IS” “is” mere quibbling. Or instead if I intentionally steer
> clear of a simple answer to the question as to where the “is” can be found.*
> **
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ————————————————————————
>
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at an-archos.com
> http://an-archos.com/mailman/listinfo/he…
> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
