Restatement of the Central Argument
Joseph Polanik
geva...@aol.com wrote:
>jPol...@nc.rr.com writes:
>Joe: my claim is the CPI (Claim of Partial Ignorance): I know that I
>am; but, not what I am.
>Jud: We are all very much aware of your self-classificational
>difficulties.
>[Joe]: thank you for admitting that I have 'self-classificational
>difficulties'. that is precisely the problem that has prompted me to
>declare 'I know that I am; but, not what I am'.
>Jud: Your claims of being partially ignorant are nothing new.
[Joe]: nor did I say they were. I said that you first admitted being
aware of them in your last post.
after months of blathering about the great wealth of first person
statements someone might recall and possibly say, you have failed to
present a single factoid about your life that provides proof either that
the human is or is not more than just a human body (which obviously
includes the brain).
similarly, despite the objections you raised to the way I went about
defining 'am' and 'is', you have not yet found a single counter-example
showing that an inventory of what is, taken as directed, would either
include what should be excluded or exclude that which should be
included.
>Joe: since you now understand this, it is obvious that I may say 'I
>know that I am; but, not what I am' in order to communicate the
>understanding that you now have.
>[Jud]: I understand the nature of your claim as you describe it
[Joe]: ahh! I have been successful at communication. perhaps, then, you
can *address* the claims you now understand:
that there are statements of philosophical significance that can only be
said using the is of isness.
that among these statements are 'I am', 'I experience; therefore, I am'
and 'I know that I am; but, not what I am'.
that 'I am' and 'I know that I am; but, not what I am' form part of the
common ground briefly shared by Descartes and Heidegger before they
diverged from it.
that AIT, insofar as it denies that there is an is of isness, is false.
in particular, it seems that a central postulate of AIT is that no
entity that is is in a completely property-free state. this postulate is
held to conflict with the fact asserted by the CPI: that I am but don't
know enough about the properties that I have to say what I am.
I renew my request that you either
1: admit that you merely *assume* that there is a conflict between this
postulate of AIT that there is no property-free state of any entity; or,
2: reveal the the process by which you deduce that the CPI is in
conflict with this postulate of AIT.
>[Jud]: I ignore ... predicate logic like the plague
[Joe]: precisely.
if you can not respond to the above claims with a rational argument;
then, you should consider tagging a team member. if he is available, you
could even bring out the big gun. perhaps, Neivens can be persuaded to
join one of your mailing lists to provide a *rational* defense of AIT
against the claims that I've made.
regards,
Joe
--
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. --- H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@