Heidegger

michaelP wrote:

>>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?

Michael,

I’m not sure what you are trying to say here.

it is true that claims of theism and claims of atheism are related to
each other; and, both stand in relation to the state of knowing
unknowing (I know that I don’t know whether theism or atheism is true).

however, I’m not sure what you are saying about non-existent or illusory
choices.

in the following enumeration, which statements do you accept and which
do you reject?

1: one may say ‘all that is, is’ and this statement means ‘all that is,
is not nothing’.

2: for whatever reason, we want to make a positive statement as to
*what* it is (for any x that is not nothing).

3: that which is does not tell us a unique name by which to know it.

4: consequently, we must choose a word, a root predicate, to carry the
meaning ‘not nothing’ so that one might say ‘all that is, is a(n) [root
predicate]’.

5: not everyone chooses the same root predicate.

6. a root predicate is non-informative; irregardless of the significance
of that which is.

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 Saturday, January 12th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback