Heidegger

Joseph Polanik wrote:

> Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>
> >Joseph Polanik wrote:
>
> >>Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>
> >>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>
> >>>>putting all these definitions together, it is clear that you are
> >>>>claiming that, from your set of premises, you deduce the skeptical
> >>>>conclusion, Q: I have not proven by evidence based logical deduction
> >>>>that I am not nothing.
>
> >>>left unaddressed and unquoted, my explicit argument against your
> >>>first law of reality in my last post as well as two posts before
> >>>that:
>
> >>it’s your argument I’m contesting; so, it is up to *you* to state
> >>which reality type(s) you are talking about. what is the reality type
> >>of that which asserts the conclusion, ‘I have not proven by evidence
> >>based logical deduction that I am not nothing’?
>
> >Any of them.
>
> >that covers all three of your reality types, since your I-1 and I-3 are
> >not phenomenal, while I-2 is phenomenal.
>
> okay; so, we *are* making progress after all. now we know that we don’t
> have to specify the reality type or mode of existence of the referent of
> the I that draws the conclusion, ‘I have not proven by evidence based
> logical deduction that I am not nothing’.
>
> now all we have to decide is whether ‘the Nothing’ (as defined by
> Heidegger) is capable of asserting this same conclusion about itself.
> how about it, Anthony, is ‘the Nothing’ able to assert ‘I have not
> proven by evidence based logical deduction that I am not nothing’?

Since this is based on your “first law of reality,” see my previous post
regarding Hume’s argument against your “first law of reality” as well as
Descartes’ argument against your I-1 physical reality, and then get back
to me.

> if not; then, it inexorably follows that any I that draws that skeptical
> conclusion may legitimately continue, ‘it is now a fact that I have just
> asserted a skeptical conclusion about myself; and, from that fact (which
> is evidence), I deduce that I am not nothing’.

Since this is based on your “first law of reality,” see my previous post
regarding Hume’s argument against your “first law of reality” as well as
Descartes’ argument against your I-1 physical reality, and then get back
to me.

> so, from your set of premises, any I may reach a conclusion (’I have
> not proven by evidence based logical deduction that I am not nothing’)
> that is self-refuting.
>
> consequently, one of your premises is false. here they are:
>
> P1. I remain self-identical throughout all my perceptions.
>
> P2. If I know that I exist, I must know that there is something which
> remains identical throughout all my perceptions.
>
> P3. I have no evidence that anything remains identical throughout all my
> perceptions.
>
> which one do you wish to reject?

None. See previous argument.

lol

Posted on Saturday, March 29th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback