Heidegger

Cologne 10-Jun-2008

Joseph Polanik schrieb Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:47:07 -0400:

> Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >>>ME: All I pointed out was that you can’t help predicating
> >>>something of nothing,
>
> >>JP: on the contrary, one *can* prevent predicating something of
> >>nothing simply by defining ‘is’ and ‘Nothing’ thru use:
>
> >>where
>
> >>N = ‘Nothing’
> >>E = existential quantifier
> >> = biconditional (ie equivalence)
>
> >>[1]: (x)(-N)
>
> >>translation: for any x that is, x is not Nothing
>
> >>this is logically equivalent to
>
> >>[2]: -(Ex)(Nx)
>
> >>translation: it is not the case that there is an x such that x is
> >>Nothing. thus:
>
> >>[3] (x)(-N) -(Ex)(Nx)
>
> >>hence, one can not attribute predicates to nothing because the word
> >>’nothing’ has no referent to which any predicate may be attributed.
>
> >ME: If you define nothing away, then you define nothing away.
>
> JP: precisely.

ME: Childish will to power.

>
> >ME: Nothing is the negation of any “x that is”. All you show is that
> >formal logic (i.e. your logical positivist thinking) cannot cope with
> >the thought of nothing. To convert negation into a mere minus sign “-”
> >is sheer thoughtlessness that evades the problem of nothing, negation,
> >not, which is one of the most difficult in philosophy. Shrink-wrapping
> >the phenomena down to formally manipulable symbols makes them vanish
> >rather than doing what needs to be done, namely, to unfold the
> >phenomena into an adequate conceptual language.
>
> JP: your perception is correct; but, your judgement is way off.
>
> you correctly see that formal logic does not allow attributing
> predicates to nothing(ness); and, that putting an argument into symbolic
> forms will make the problem (attempts to predicate nothing) vanish.
>
> you appear to be making the insinuendo “… and, that’s a bad thing”.
> that’s a judgement, a bad judgement.

ME: If you want to avoid philosophical problems, then, by all means.

> >>>ME: The empty set is something. And nothing is not the empty set.
>
> >>JP: the empty set is a real set; but, it has no members. similarly,
> >>’nothing’ is a real word; but, it has no referent.
>
> >>one can not attribute any predicate to nothing because the word
> >>’nothing’ has no referent to which any predicate may be attributed.
>
> >ME: You have merely formalized “referent” as “x that is”, but nothing
> >is the negation of any “x that is”. We’ve been here before: nothing is
> >not something, and that is what you cannot avoid predicating of
> >nothing.
>
> JP: you are contradicting yourself. above you that I have avoided
> predicating ‘nothing’ by defining it away and that I have made the
> problem vanish by using formally manipulable symbols. you can’t then
> turn around and claim “you cannot avoid predicating of nothing”.

ME You do both. In order to define nothing away, you first have to
distinguish it from something, which necessarily provides also a predication
of nothing. Carnap’s program of doing away with philosophical problems by
declaring them to be Scheinprobleme has long since bitten the dust. The
unquestioning belief in formal logic is sheer philosophical naivety, and the
best analytical philosophers have seen that.

>
> JP:
> that’s just more Heideggerian doublespeak.

ME: Your own thoughtless doublespeak

>
>
> === === ===
> JP:
> Note: Naming Convention: I’m renaming the “Heideggerian Anomaly” to
> the “Heideggerian Nothing(ness) Anomaly”, HNA. using this more
> descriptive name may avoid the suggestion that we’ve already established
> that there are no other anomalies in Heideggerian thinking.
>
> HNA, consists in refusing to acknowledge a refusal to accept the
> impossibility of attributing predicates to nothing(ness).
>

ME: You call this “Heideggerian”, but there is nothing especially
Heideggerian about the issue of nothing. You could learn the same lesson
from Plato or Hegel.

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

Posted on Sunday, June 15th, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback