Heidegger

Of course what Polanik is doing could be characterized as a game but given that his pattern is unabated in the face of it being directly questioned I would characterize his doings differently because who Polanik is being rings of some sort of disturbance … like a possibility.

Bob

>From: Anthony Crifasi
>Date: 2008/03/29 Sat AM 11:23:18 CDT
>To:
Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
>Subject: Joseph Polanik the game player II

>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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, March 29th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback