Heidegger

Michael Eldred wrote:

>The philosophical background to the OED’s significations is the
>distinction between essence and existence, i.e. whatness and thatness.

>So the OED’s so-called “absolute signification” refers simply to the
>pure presence or existence of this singular somewhat: ‘it is’, whereas
>the first category says what this singular some-what is, its whatness,
>quidditas or essence. Because you are hell bent on disallowing the
>so-called “absolute signification” of ‘to be’,

wrong, again. I’m challenging the assumption of *physical* existence
retained by the OED’s so-called ‘absolute’ signification.

>the distinction between the singular being’s existence (simply this
>some-what’s presence) and its essence collapses.

here you may be on the right track. using an existential construction
asserts *that* the subject is without necessarily specifying the reality
type of the subject of the statement.

the philosophical history of the existence/essence dispute may seem like
it maps to the difference between that I am and what I am; but, the
significance of the CPI is the claim that I don’t know *what* I am —
just knowing that I am doesn’t tell me what I am. so, even if we had a
coherent notion of what an essence is and of what it might mean to
‘have’ an essence, it must also be possible to say I don’t know what my
essence is.

what does the philosophical history of the existence/essence dispute say
on that point?

do I have an essence that makes I-2, this phenomenological experiencer,
a function of some neural state/process?

do I have an essence that makes I-2, this phenomenological experiencer,
a function of a state/process of some non-physical entity (a reality of
type 3)?

what do you say? do you think that just knowing ‘I am’ tells you what
sort of essence you have?

Joe

–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
 http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

Posted on Wednesday, January 16th, 2008 at 11:40 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback