Joseph Polanik the continuing game player
June 8th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Joseph Polanik the continuing game player :: Joseph Polanik the continuing game player :: Joseph Polanik the continuing game player :: Joseph Polanik the continuing game player
Joseph Polanik wrote:
> >>{1}: the premises as stated appear to allow a modus tollens operation
> >>to conclude -P, ‘I do not exist’ or ‘I am nothing’. however, since
> >>premise [1] is a conditional, it is derivable from the negation of its
> >>own antecedent. check the truth table for the proposition:
>
> >>-P -> (P -> Q)
>
> >>[this is a logical truth of the propositional calculus. it is theorem
> >>51 in EJ Lemmon’s _Beginning Logic_ p 59]
>
> >>thus, despite giving the appearance of a rational *argument*,
> >>Professor Crifasi has simply assumed (-P & -Q).
>
> >>{2}: given [2], it is known that [1] can only be vacuously true or
> >>completely false.
>
> >This was part was explicitly addressed at the end of this the following
> >post:
>
> >http://an-archos.com/pipermail/heidegger_an-archos.com/2008-May/033975.html
>
> >Yet another example of ignoring my prior responses.
>
> [it would help, Professor, if you followed the advice of the moderator
> to quote the relevant material instead of linking to the entire post
> (which in your case is usually extremely verbose since you often combine
> responses to many separate posts). that way one doesn’t have to guess at
> what you think is a reply to the issue in question].
First, above I identified the argument as the one “at the end” of the
linked post, and you found it just fine. Secondly, the moderator hardly
follows his own advice, as evidenced by the posts I cited which he
deleted in every single one of his replies. I would advise you to do as
he says and not as he does. Thirdly, thank you for responding to my
argument below. Now please respond to the majority of the other
arguments that I gave in the same post (which you previously claimed I
never gave, to which I responded by linking those previous instances,
which is why I’m insisting that you respond to them now before repeating
that error again, as you have many times before):
http://an-archos.com/pipermail/heidegger…
I will respond to your argument below once you have demonstrated due
reciprocity on your part. Thank you in advance for responding to the
arguments I’ve already given.
> are you claiming the following is your response to the question about
> vacuity?
>
> >A vacuous conditional is still true.
>
> a vacuous conditional is a vacuous conditional. true; but, that is
> itself a vacuous tautology (to borrow Michael E’s phrase).
>
> >And if the conditional (”If I
> >exist, then I remain self-identical”) is true, then you cannot question
> >this self-identity without also questioning your existence,
>
> let’s not get distracted, Professor. the question is *whether* your
> premise is vacuous or false.
>
> given [2], the conditional is true only if its *antecedent is false*.
> — only if -P is true.
>
> thus, the truth of your major premise, [1], *assumes* -P (’I do not
> exist’ or ‘I am nothing’); and, is in fact derivable from -P which is
> what you are trying to conclude via modus tollens; so, you have clearly
> *assumed your own conclusion*.
>
> are we hearing you correctly?
>
> are you saying that the *premise* of your argument is ‘I do not
> exist’ or ‘I am nothing’?
>
> independently of your answer to that question, are you saying that the
> *conclusion* of your argument (whether interim or final) is ‘I do not
> exist’ or ‘I am nothing’?
>
> thank you in advance for clarifying just what you are claiming.
