Heidegger

In a message dated 30/06/2008 11:37:26 GMT Standard Time,
_jPolanik at nc.rr.com_ (mailto:jPolanik@nc.rr.com) writes:

WHAT AM I?

Jud: Something NEVER just *is* - it always *IS /something particular/.

Joe:
this may be true. speaking in the first person (as dasein must), I would say
‘I am; and, I know *that* I am something particular’. however, it does not
follow that I know *what* type of particular I am.

Jud:
Then you are the only person in the world (apart from the traumatised and
brain dead etc.) who does not know what type of particular he is.
For your information - and I am sure you are simply dying to know - you are
a human - like the rest of us.

Joe:
hence, the CPI: I know that I am; but, not what I am.

Jud:
Then the CPI is a load of old bollocks.

Jud:
Every human on earth knows that he or she is existing as soon as they open
their eyes in the morning or wake up with a compelling desire to urinate.
Furthermore, unless they awake in a hospital bed suffering trauma and memory
loss) they KNOW WHO THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY - AND WHAT THEY ARE!

Joe:
the debate as to whether a human is or is not more than a human body has
gone on for thousands of years with no resolution.

Jud:
You are deviously twisting the question - I said they know WHO they are (as
well as What they ARE.)
Are you seriously contesting the fact that humans do not know who they are
unaware of the fact that they are humans?

The so-called *debate* is only due to the fact that to a large extent our
human culture has been in the palsied hands of intellectual dead-beats many of
them ravaged by syphilis. Many of the lesser wits continue to be influenced
by losers like Descartes, Heidegger and Uncle Tom Cobley and by the
anti-intellectualism of the church (and religious bummery in general.) See religious
terrorism, priestly child abuse etc, etc, etc. The *christains Bush and Blair
dropping bombs on children.

Joe:
I conclude from this that, while many individuals have opinions as to the
structure of a human, no one can prove (except to his or her own satisfaction)
that their opinion is true. hence, in that sense, no one ‘knows’ what a
human really is.

Jud:
Wrong. We all know what a human is - we ARE ONE. As to the human structure,
not only do we have the script (DNA) for a human, but you can check into a
medical centre and be fitted with a new heart if you are in need of one. If
there was no consensus of agreement amongst humans regarding physiological
structure you would not dare let a surgeon with a knife anywhere near you. It is
up to the nutters who claim in *the mind* and *the ontological difference* and
other fantasies to PROVE such crap exists - not to those who deny such
autistic quackery. They have been yapping on for centuries about *the soul* and
other crap - time for the loonies to put up or shut up - they should pack-up
their pernicious crap and leave the universities and take jobs on check-out
counters or car-washes where they belong..

Georges:
On the other hand, a slight linguistic competence tells us that it’s just
bad English (or Latin for that matter), ill-formulated and thus meaningless.
“(to) be” is a copula, an operator assigning (predicate) attributes to (subject)
entity. “I am singing” is a statement. “I am” is a truncated cripple
screaming for “what am I? mincemeat?”

Joe: ‘
I am’ or the latin ’sum’ is, in fact, well-formed; for, there it has an
implicit complement — the root predicate. shorn of the perjorative verbiage
that passes for philosophical analysis, Metonomski is correct in saying that ‘I
am’ cries out for the obvious question, ‘what am I?’ Descartes was explicit on
this point; but, Heidegger overlooked it — although one could say that it
was implicit.

Jud:
Where was Descartes explicit on this point?

Joe:
early in the second meditation [CSM II, 16-17], Descartes concludes that not
even a malicious demon of supreme cunning and power could “bring it about
that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something.

Jud:
Where does he prove the existence of such a counter-factual malicious demon
of supreme cunning and power that appears so necessary to prove his point. If
his counterfactual crackpottery is dependent upon such lets pretend
ontological shenanigans then why did he not also pose the Meinongian-style question:

*I think of the existence malicious demon of supreme cunning and power (or a
crystal mountain covered in diamonds) therefore it exists.*

Should not the falsifying Frenchman have first established the existence
of such a Mickey Mouse demon before coming up with an explanation upon which
such an crudity was founded. This is a gutter-level * philosophy of *the
lower depths* redolent of skinhead Heideggerianism.

Joe:
I conclude from this that, while many individuals have opinions as to the
structure of a human, no one can prove (except to his or her own satisfaction)
that their opinion is true. hence, in that sense, no one ‘knows’ what a human
really is.

Joe:
Descartes proceeds to ask himself variations of the question ‘what am I?’.

Jud:
No wonder he has become a laughing-stock in the corridors of shame. The
answer to his self-questioning *What am I?* was quite obvious … he was a
stupid, time-wasting idiot who should have had his arse smacked and sent back to
the Jesuit Palace of Pederasts. He should have stuck to arithmatic.

Joe:

Posted on Sunday, July 6th, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback