Heidegger

On 3/30/08, Joseph Polanik wrote:

> is the philosophy professor unable to answer a simple question that
> could be posed by anyone — irregardless of what previous conversations
> you’ve had with them or anyone else? the question is: is ‘the Nothing’
> (as defined by the Heidegger) able to assert ‘I have not proven by
> evidence based logical deduction that I am not nothing’?
>
> Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>
> >Joseph Polanik wrote:
>
> >>in your last post you admitted that the skeptical conclusion, ‘I have
> >>not proven by evidence based logical deduction that I am not nothing’
> >>could be asserted by any I irregardless of reality type.
>
> >Then either prove “by evidence based logical deduction that I am not
> >nothing” WITHOUT appealing (explicitly or implicitly) to your first law
> >of reality that “nothing unreal is self aware,” or if you can’t
> >disprove it without presupposing to that law, then see my previous
> >Humean argument against that law.
>
> I showed that, given your own definitions, the skeptical conclusion you
> derived from your set of premises is ‘I have not proven by evidence
> based logical deduction that I am not nothing’.
>
> I have argued that any I which can can assert this skeptical conclusion
> can continue ‘the fact that I can assert this proposition is itself
> evidence from which I conclude that the proposition is false; and,
> hence, I *have* proven by evidence based logical deduction that I am not
> nothing.

Sorry Joe, just clipping out the following won’t make it go away:

>>Q -> -Q [Q implies its own negation] because any assertion of Q is in
>>violation of the First Law of Reality: nothing unreal is self-aware.

That’s how you “argued that any I which can assert this skeptical conclusion
can continue ‘the fact that I can assert this proposition is itself evidence
from which I conclude that the proposition is false.” So sorry Joe, you
explicitly argued to my supposed “self refutation” by appealing to your
first law of reality, which law was challenged by my argument from Hume in
the first place. Nice try Joe. Next time, try waiting a week or so and THEN
clipping out the above - there’s more of a chance I might forget if there’s
a longer span of time between your replies.

that is the argument you must contest — once you stop dancing in the
> shadows of your own denial system.
>
> this version of my argument does not appeal explicitly or implicitly to
> the first law of reality, ‘nothing unreal is self-aware’; and, indeed,
> does not mention self-awareness at all.
>
> if it is not intuitively obvious that the not nothingness of the I is a
> necessary condition of the I’s ability to assert any conclusion at all;
> then, the I may reason as follows:
>
> * it is assumed by predicate logic that one can not attribute predicates
> to nothingness.

Please prove that assumption without appealing to your first law of reality.
(lol - adding this “assumption” just repeats the problem!)

Now remember Joe, my memory is pretty good, but after a week or so it might
fade, so if you reply to this post after a week or so and THEN clip out your
“Q->-Q” argument that I quoted above, you’ll have a better chance at fooling
me into forgetting you ever said it. I would suggest trying different time
spans to test the length of my memory - you might get better results that
way.

* hence the predicate ‘not nothing’ is attributable to any x to which
> any predicate at all may be attributed.
>
> * from Crifasi’s set of three premises, I conclude ‘I have not proven by
> evidence based logical deduction that I am not nothing’.
>
> * the fact that I have drawn this (or any other) conclusion is evidence
> that proves that I am capable of drawing conclusions.
>
> * ‘capable of drawing conclusions’ is a predicate attributable to the I;
> hence, the predicate ‘not nothing’ may also be attributed to the I.
>
> * (therefore) I am not nothing.

Posted on Sunday, March 30th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback