Heidegger

Joe:
our starting point is the referent of ‘I’ in ‘I experience; therefore, I
am’. I would say that I am real in some sense simply because nothing unreal is
self-aware.
Mike:
I’ll come with you down that road. Here ‘I’ will denote ‘individual
self-awareness’ or something of that kind.
Next the sense of ‘real’ has to be provided.
If we […]

GEVANS613 at aol.com wrote:
>jPolanik@nc.rr.com writes:
>WHAT AM I?
>Jud: Something NEVER just *is* - it always *IS something particular.
>Joe: this may be true. speaking in the first person (as dasein must),
>I would say ‘I am; and, I know *that* I am something particular’.
>however, it does not follow that I […]

Cologne 30-Jun-2008
Joseph Polanik schrieb Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:52:51 -0400:
> HNA: Non-Clarification of Non-Entities
>
> >>>ME: I said that, by predicating that something is not nothing, you
> >>>also predicate that nothing is not something. So even before you get
> >>>to define nothing away by shrink-wrapping it down to a minus sign,
> […]

In a message dated 30/06/2008 11:37:26 GMT Standard Time,
_jPolanik at nc.rr.com_ (mailto:jPolanik@nc.rr.com) writes:
WHAT AM I?
Jud: Something NEVER just *is* - it always *IS /something particular/.
Joe:
this may be true. speaking in the first person (as dasein must), I would say
‘I am; and, I know *that* I am something particular’. however, it does […]

GEVANS613 at aol.com wrote:
>jPolanik@nc.rr.com writes:
>GEVANS613@aol.com wrote:
>>Metanomski on What Am I?
>>WHAT AM I?
>Jud: Something NEVER just *is* - it always *IS /something particular/.
this may be true. speaking in the first person (as dasein must), I would
say ‘I am; and, I know *that* I am something particular’. however, it
does not follow […]

In a message dated 6/29/2008 3:19:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:
Jud:
Descartes was just the brainwashed product of a Jesuit seminary - he could
not be expected to think clearly - and if he had - they would have burnt him at
the stake. Something NEVER just *is* - it always […]

michaelP wrote:
>MichaelE:
>>>ME. Not everybody tries to assert that nothing can be predicated of
>>>nothingness, and I have shown how you contradict yourself in the
>>>attempt to do so.
>JoeP:
>>you have shown (to your own satisfaction, of course) that *any* effort
>>(not just my effort) to formally disallow the predication of
>>nothing(ness) […]

HNA: Non-Clarification of Non-Entities
>>>ME: I said that, by predicating that something is not nothing, you
>>>also predicate that nothing is not something. So even before you get
>>>to define nothing away by shrink-wrapping it down to a minus sign,
>>>you have predicated that it is not something.
>>JP: I don’t know whether you […]

In a message dated 29/06/2008 17:05:57 GMT Standard Time, jPolanik at nc.rr.com
writes:
GEVANS613 at aol.com wrote:
>Metanomski on What Am I?
>WHAT AM I?
Georges:
>Better than that. Reading a book without knowing its context of
>author’s achievements and Weltanschauung often, if not always leads to
>put erroneous constructions on some assertions. Best example is “I
>think, […]

GEVANS613 at aol.com wrote:
>Metanomski on What Am I?
>WHAT AM I?
>Better than that. Reading a book without knowing its context of
>author’s achievements and Weltanschauung often, if not always leads to
>put erroneous constructions on some assertions. Best example is “I
>think, therefore I am” of Descartes. Unprepared reading gives on the
[…]