The Quagmire of SIS and Other Philosophical Catastrophes
March 15th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: The Quagmire of SIS and Other Philosophical Catastrophes :: The Quagmire of SIS and Other Philosophical Catastrophes :: The Quagmire of SIS and Other Philosophical Catastrophes :: The Quagmire of SIS and Other Philosophical Catastrophes
Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>>>So let’s leave Heidegger aside for the moment and concentrate on why
>>>I think your line of questioning would lead straight to either the
>>>destruction of the self (Hume) or the reduction of Others into the
>>>self (Husserl). This WILL inevitably lead to why Heidegger says what
>>>he says.
>>I don’t mind hearing you explain how I can cause this philosophical
>>catastrophe simply by asking ‘what am I?’. I am willing to play along;
>>but, I have some reservations that I probably should mention:
>>1. Heidegger attributes a first-person perspective to dasein and
>>illustrates its use by having dasein utter ‘I am’ — the same
>>statement Descartes says is necessarily true. I don’t think we’re
>>going to be able to discuss the ultimate philosophical catastrophe,
>>sinking into the quagmire of SIS, without wondering how this
>>statement, ‘I am’, is true when dasein says it; but, false when
>>Descartes says it.
>When Descartes or you say it, what is meant (as you yourself said) is
>either a mind or a soul or a spirit or neurons. That’s the problem -
>the manner in which you’ve casted the problem already presupposes the
>prioritization of me over Them. That list of choices already discounts
>from the start the possibility that “I” am really fundamentally Them.
that list of choices is not an exhaustive list. it is intended to
suggest an inquiry unprejudiced by the assumption that only physical (or
only non-physical) possibilities are under consideration.
need I point out that, if the inquiry prompted by the question ‘what am
I?’ is to be *un*prejudiced, the list of possible conclusions is also
the list of assumptions not to be made at the getgo? so, I don’t mind if
we suspend the assumption that I am them in order to consider it as a
possible conclusion.
in any event, starting from a statement that Descartes, Heidegger and I
(and you?) take as true, a self-asserted ‘I am’, how do you show that I
can cause a philosophical catastrophe merely by *asking* what am I?
>>2. you have created a minor philosophical catastrophe of your own
>>during the Hume’s brain thought experiment, discussion of which ended
>>abruptly. you abandoned your argument without providing a rational
>>defense of your claim that, after Igor cracks open Hume’s skull, you
>>see a brain of reality type 1 whereas I see a brain of reality type 2.
>We both see a phenomenal reality - me no more than you. We all have to
>use our senses to see the brain. There’s no difference in reality type.
alrighty then, we both see a brain of reality type 2. do you deny that
there is a metaphenomenal reality correlated with the experience of
seeing a brain of reality type 2?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
