Heidegger

> The One True Root Predicate
>
> Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >Joseph Polanik schrieb Tue, 08 Jan 2008 06:48:38 -0500:
>
> >>Has The Implicit Complement Been Found?
>
> >>Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >>>ME: … your “root predicate” ‘reality’ must be prior to, more
> >>>fundamental than being.
>
> >>JP: the root predicate ‘reality’ is neither more nor less fundamental
> >>than the root predicate ‘being’.
>
> >ME: Except that to get to this so-called “root predicate”, you have
> >already had to posit a prior predicate, ‘being’, in both your Axiom 0
> >(which includes ‘x is’) and CPI (which includes ‘I am’), which shows
> >that ‘reality’ cannot be a ‘root’ predicate, presupposing, as it does,
> >a prior predicate.
>
> >>JP: what is logically prior to the state of having chosen a root
> >>predicate is the state of not yet having exercised that choice. that
> >>which is is not nothing; and yet, that which is does not tell us its
> >>own name; so, we must choose a root predicate that is attributable to
> >>all that is.
>
> >ME: There is no choice whatsoever about it, because you cannot avoid
> >the true root predicate, ‘being’. Why? Because as soon as you open your
> >mouth you have already invoked it.
>
> >>JP: are you saying, “I, Michael Eldred, have found the one true root
> >>predicate and thou shalt not have any alternate instead of it”?
>
> >ME: Throughout this debate I have not claimed any originality.
>
> okay, so you are not the first person to say, “I, [say your name here],
> have found the one true root predicate and thou shalt not have any
> alternate instead of it”.
>
> that *is* what you are saying, is it not? that you have defined the
> terms of the language in which philosophy takes place so that everyone
> is required to agree with your opinion.
>
> >ME:Language has already chosen for you before you could ever get to a
> >choice.
>
> what an imperiously orwellian approach to philosophy!
>
> shall we blame this approach on Plato? or Heidegger?

Nope, Joe, on philosophical thinking is all; the “choice” is not only
non-existent but (thereby) illusory [i.e., the outside (the anti-, the
other, the not-, etc)] of a ‘language domain’ D is only/merely the outside
*of* ‘language domain’ D and brings with it all the essentiality of D (in
the same way that a-theism depends on and is bounded by {i.e., belongs to}
theism); so (it is) there! OK?

regards

michaelP

>
> Joe

Posted on Friday, January 11th, 2008 at 11:50 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback