To Be or Not to Be … a Taxonomy of All that Is
March 25th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: tree of be-ing :: Taxonomy :: To Be or Not to Be … a Taxonomy of All that Is :: tree of be-ing
>Joe, my argument concerning the severe problem of a taxonomy or set of
>all that is can be rendered slightly more formally as follows:
>Firstly, let’s flatten your taxonomy (TAXALL, se below) into a set (of
>all that is, {SETALL}, taking all the nodes that appear in TAXALL as
>its elements/members). I know this leaves out all the hierarchical
>relations between members/nodes (which, of course, could be represented
>with infinitely complex nesting of subsets, etc), but somewhat
>simplifies the argument.
>Secondly, let’s represent {SETALL} as {A1, A2, A3,…An,…} where each
>An is a member of the set of all that is.
>Now, either (1) {SETALL} has sets, and thus {SETALL} as members, or
>(2) it doesn’t.
>Scenario (1): if {SETALL} contains {SETALL} then as a first
>approximation we can write {SETALL} = {A1, A2, A3, … An, …,
>{SETALL}}; second approximation: {SETALL} = {A1, A2, A3, … An, …,
>{{A1, A2, A3, … An, …, {SETALL}}}}
>As you can see, this has to be expanded all the way down into an
>infinitely dense migraine of a set. For me, it presents and induces the
>nausea of the ad nauseam and ad infinitum. It feels absurd.
>Scenario (2): if {SETALL} does not contain {SETALL}, then {SETALL} is
>not (representable as) a member of the set of all that is, i.e., in
>this form of representation, {SETALL} is not one of the many things
>that is. In that case, {SETALL} does not exist in that universe of
>discourse you have set up, and thus it is a no-no from the start.
>So we are faced with a choice between a nauseous absurdity or a
>nonsensical non-starter. Or, of course, as is my argument, a rejection
>of the very idea of representing beings-as-a-whole as a taxonomy or a
>set/class (and perhaps, any kind of mathematical object).
>The rough argument above is nicely approached more formally by Paul R
>Halmos in his text ‘Naive Set Theory’. Unfortunately, I cannot
>reproduce the formal argument of Halmos’ here without a few more
>symbols, but he does say at his conclusion:
>”We have proved, in other words, that *nothing contains everything* or,
>more spectacularly, *there is no universe*. ‘Universe’ here is used in
>the sense of ‘universe of discourse’, meaning in any particular
>discussion, a set that contains all the objects that enter into that
>discussion.”
Michael,
I appreciate the time you’ve taken to present this objection in a very
precise way; but, I’m wondering why you exempt Heidegger from having to
deal with this objection.
if you flatten the taxonomy of all to form a set you will get the set of
all beings.
Heideggerian philosophy uses ‘being’ as its root predicate; so we can
say for any x that is, x is a being. this is a set inclusion rule. if
you use it to compose the set of all beings and I use it to compose the
set of all that is we end up with the same set.
how how would you apply your {SETALL} analysis to the set of all beings?
it should come out the same way because it is the same set.
>See below for further comments on your response to my earlier post.
>>since Heidegger creates his taxonomy by taking the taxonomy of all
>>that is and adding what you call ‘be-ing’ and what Heidegger calls
>>’the Nothing’. why does you objection to the taxonomy of all that is
>>apply with even greater force to Heidegger’s taxonomy.
>I discern no taxonomy in Heidegger’s thinking. Show us where you find a
>taxonomy.
I’ve already referred you to section 9 of Basic Concepts where Heidegger
describes three basic terms: being, beings and the Nothing. you don’t
want to call that a taxonomy? call it a set and apply your {SETALL}
critique to it.
>>do you want to ban all taxonomies?
>again, how bizarre: you introduce taxonomies, moreover, the taxonomy of
>all that is into a discussion of Heidegger’s thinking of be-ing;
if you don’t want to ban all taxonomies; then, you end up with a set of
two other sets: the set of legitimate taxonomies and a set of ‘other
stuff’ that possibly includes taxonomies you consider illegitimate. does
this set avoid the problems you see with a taxonomy of all that is?
>how do you justify the use of TAXALL?
I’ve already mentioned the following passage from BaT:
>>”In the assertions ‘God is’ and ‘the world is’, we assert Being. This
>>word ‘is’, however, cannot be meant to apply to these entities in the
>>same sense, when between them there is an infinite difference of
>>Being; if the signification of ‘is’ were univocal, then what is
>>created would be viewed as if it were uncreated, or the uncreated
>>would be reduced to the status of something created. But neither does
>>’Being’ function as a mere name which is the same in both cases: in
>>both cases ‘Being’ is understood.” [Section 20]
>>how would you interpret this passage so as not to provide the basis
>>for a taxonomy of all that is — with one top-level node for each
>>’voice’ of the ‘is’?
>Again, I see no taxonomy.
suppose someone were to wonder, “what would happen if I classified
beings according to the ‘voice’ of ‘is’ used to say of a being that it
is”?
what do you call the result of such a classification?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
