Who has Doomed Philosophy to the Quagmire of SIS?
March 19th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Who has Doomed Philosophy to the Quagmire of SIS? :: Who has Doomed Philosophy to the Quagmire of SIS? :: Who has Doomed Philosophy to the Quagmire of SIS? :: Who has Doomed Philosophy to the Quagmire of SIS?
Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>>in the thread concerning Hume’s brain you indicated that you could
>>>>not explain how the I-2 could be self-instantiating. unless you now
>>>>have such an explanation, how do you avoid the conclusion that there
>>>>are any others at all?
>>>because the very notion of causal instantiation is exactly like the
>>>notion of matter - we either have no positive concept of it at all,
>>>or the concept is completely phenomenal. Just as no one has ever
>>>experienced matter, but only phenomenal qualities that are attributed
>>>to matter, no one has ever experienced causality (including
>>>instantiation), but only one phenomenon following another, in which
>>>case the antecedent phenomenon is assumed to have “instantiated” the
>>>subsequent one. So appealing to “instantiation” brings you no closer
>>>to any metaphenomenal reality than before.
>>you have undertaken to show that I have doomed philosophy to the
>>quagmire of SIS merely by asking ‘what am I?’; but, if you deny that
>>there is at least one metaphenomenal reality, you have yourself
>>created the quagmire into which you are sinking. you can’t blame that
>>on me.
>I can blame you for merely asserting a “metaphenomenal reality” with
>absolutely no evidence whatsoever. The only thing I am denying is that
>a philosopher who demanded an “empirically testable claim” from me
>should then turn around and make an empirically unfounded claim.
>Philosophers should give evidence, no?
I did not ‘demand’ an empirically testable claim. I merely asked if you
were presenting one because your claims are so extreme. you say that
certain consequences follow *inevitably* from asking ‘what am I?’; but,
I do not experience such consequences; and, you’ve so far declined to
present your case.
you suggested that we “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.”
why not just get on with it?
if you sincerely believe that there is no metaphenomenal reality; then,
how did *I* make you believe that?
how did *I* doom philosophy to the quagmire of SIS you are already in?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
