Non-Clarification of Non-Entities
July 6th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Non-Clarification of Non-Entities :: CPI vs OD :: The Copula is Actually a Predicate. :: Questioning vs Assuming Being
Cologne 30-Jun-2008
Joseph Polanik schrieb Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:52:51 -0400:
> HNA: Non-Clarification of Non-Entities
>
> >>>ME: I said that, by predicating that something is not nothing, you
> >>>also predicate that nothing is not something. So even before you get
> >>>to define nothing away by shrink-wrapping it down to a minus sign,
> >>>you have predicated that it is not something.
>
> >>JP: I don’t know whether you presently work in the field of
> >>mathematics; but, you’ve told us that you have two degrees in math and
> >>that you’ve written papers in the field. what do mathematicians say
> >>about attributing predicates to members of the empty set (even though
> >>there are no such members).
>
> >>mathematicians might say that any x that is something is not a member
> >>of the empty set. would they then spin around like you do and claim
> >>that it follows that a member of the empty set is not a something? in
> >>other words, would professional mathematicians attribute a predicate
> >>’not something’ (or, whatever) to ‘member of the empty set’?
>
> >>what other predicates do you feel may be attributed to members of the
> >>empty set (even though there are no such members)?
>
> >ME: Here you are taking mathematical set theory as a yardstick for
> >philosophical questioning, as if this were possible. But it isn’t. Why?
> >Because mathematics takes for granted certain entities such as sets and
> >members of sets, whereas philosophy aims at an ontological
> >clarification of entities as such.
>
> JP: I have no objection of clarification of entities as such — once it is
>
> given that there is an entity.
ME: Yes, that’s your problem. You have to be given an entity before your
thinking can start. So you do it by axiomatic force, exercising your
definitional choice. If you take the giving for granted — then No Problem!
Thereby you skirt the question of the giving of beings and the question of
‘not’, of negation and nothingness, which has been with us since Plato
(you’re Plato’s sophist, but with the opposite sign). Formal logic is too
puny for such questions. Even analytic philosophy today acknowledges the
failure of Carnap’s positivism.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.arte-fact.org _-_-_-_-_-_-_ artefact at t-online.de _-_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred (c)_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>
>
> the point of mentioning the phrase ‘member of the empty set’ is that it
> is a phrase that *by definition* has no referent. the empty set has no
> members.
>
> so where is the entity to be clarified?
>
> similarly,
>
> if, for any x that is, x is a being; then, ‘nonbeing’ is a word that has
> no referent. where is the entity to be clarified?
>
