Heidegger

Cologne 11-Jan-2008

Joseph Polanik schrieb Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:08:43 -0500:

> 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: How broad-mindedly liberal.

> >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.
>
> JP: 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.
>
> JP: what an imperiously orwellian approach to philosophy!
>
> shall we blame this approach on Plato? or Heidegger?
>

ME: Blame it on language. Or on being, which comes to language.

What problems for thinking these little words, ‘is’ and ‘am’, cause!

Within subjectivist metaphysics, whose thinking you embody to a ‘t’, it is
self-evident that the human subject underlies everything that is, and
therefore apparently has the power to “choose” as the hallmark of (sham)
‘freedom’, i.e. caprice. That’s merely a shift from the medieval age in which
it was self-evident that God was the subject that underlies all, and the
human being merely an object of God. Then it was heresy to question this
foundation stone of a world understanding.

It is also interesting that, in insisting on a ‘complement’ for ‘x is’ and
reformulating it as ‘x is not nothing’, you are very close to Hegel, but only
close, and therefore far.

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

Posted on Friday, January 11th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback