Heidegger

Cologne 03-Oct-2006

GEVANS613 at aol.com schrieb Mon, 2 Oct 2006 20:21:14 EDT:

> In a message dated 01/10/2006 artefact at t-online.de writes: Cologne
> 01-Oct-2006 THIS IS STILL SECTION ZWEI OF JUD EVANS’ ANSWER TO Plato
> Theaet. 155e My part eine of my response To Part one of Two is still
> awaiting the moderator’s OK [it being slightly over the acceptable
> file-size. I am loathe to split it and send it as two separate files,
> for it could complicate things with so many e-mails and their answers
> chasing each other. iI intend to leave it for a bit longer therefore
> until Malcolm has had a chance to make a decision.

————SNIP

> DR. ELDRED: The public revelation here is that you have no answer to
> this dilemma that we human beings could leave the identity (the
> belonging-together) of human understanding and being and still say
> anything at all. I challenge you to be consistent and fall silent
> forever. understanding human being implicates you with abstractions
> which, if they did not exist, would rob you of your ontological status
> as a human being.

> JUD EVANS [NOW] It is not the case that the strings of abstractional
> words actually EXIST - it is simply that that are AVAILABLE

ME: That is an extremely interesting statement: “It is not the case that
strings of abstractional words actually EXIST - it is simply that they
are AVAILABLE “. So they are available without existing?!. This is an
implicit admission, at the very least, that there are different ways in
which things exist — apart from the nitty-gritty, hands-on way of
tangible things. They exist also as “avaiable”. Note the contortional
formulation “”strings of abstractional words”, however, trying to avoid
ascribing any ontological status to abstractions themselves. For the
materialist eliminativist, language is just blah-blah, and human
understanding (which articulates itself in language) mere fuzz.

————-SNIP

> Jud: I am interested in the *traditional ontology* of what exists and
> what does not exist. You are not answering my questions, yo are merely
> incessantly regurgitating the formal ological* intonation over and
> over again like you kept incessantly repeating bits from the bible in
> the belief that the more times you repeat them in some sort of a
> spell-like way they will cause the pimple on the end of your nose to
> go away. Just simply answer the questions - her they are again - they
> are not DIFFICULT questions any young kid who just joined the list
> could supply his or her version. Am I to understand you correct that
> you are claiming that:(A) There existed no cosmos before you were born
> or(B) That no cosmos existed before there were humans who could
> comprehend the cosmos as the cosmos? [or world]

> DR. ELDRED:I am saying neither A) nor B) but, for the nth time:
> Nothing at all can be said about what exists or does not exist OUTSIDE
> the identity of human understanding and being.

> JUD EVANS [NOW] Of COURSE NOTHING can be said BY YOU about what exists
> or does not exist OUTSIDE the identity of human understanding and
> being before YOU were born or AFTER you are dead.

ME: That was not the formulation of your question B), which reads “That
no cosmos existed before there were humans who could comprehend the
cosmos as the cosmos?” Or are you trying to assert that I, Michael
Eldred, am all humans?

> Jud: But that attitude ids pure solipsism.

ME: This stupid conclusion results only from you evading your very own
question.

> Jud: The people who survive you and the people who lived before you
> can say as much as they like about what exists or does not exist.

ME: Again, this is merely your empirical individualist attitude talking,
and you are evading the terms of your very own question B).

> Jud: You remind me of Mrs Edwards in Dyllan Thomas’ *Under Milk Wood*
> of whom the poet made her husband say: *When she shuts her eyes - it’s
> NIGHT!*

ME:Another perverse statement attributing individualist empiricism (and
therefore solipsism) to me. For the nth time, I am asserting neither A)
nor B) but rather
C): Nothing at all can be said about what exists or does not exist
OUTSIDE the identity of human understanding and being.
Why do you keep on perverting what I say? Why are you evading my
response, which is quite plain? Are we to conclude that your position is
that something can be said about what exists or does not exist OUTSIDE
the identity of human understanding and being? I presume so, since you
have many times made statements about things (the notorious “causal
objects”) existing in themselves, independently of any human
understanding. The uncomfortable fact for the eliminativist, however, is
that “things in themselves” makes sense ONLY FOR HUMAN UNDERSTANDING,
“in themselves” (Gk. _kath’ auto_) being precisely an ontological
category existing in its own way (and not merely in the human mind as a
fantasy). You’re squirming just like the slippery sophist in Plato’s
Sophist, and I await the next blast of polemical hot air in your attempt
to obscure the issue.

> JUD EVANS [NOW] It’s late now and I’m a bit tired. Tomorrow is my
> first full day back for the start of my second year of my course. I
> will catch up with the rest soon - still no word from malcolm about my
> missing PART ONE of TWO. regards,Jud.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Posted on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006 at 8:50 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback