In a message dated 04/10/2004 02:13:06 GMT Standard Time, janstr@xxxxxxx
writes:
Hi Jud,
you're really getting excited, aren't you ... but let's stay relaxed and
look at the following questions:
Jud:
Not excited Jan...amused. ;-)
Relaxed? I'm always relaxed Jan - they call me the Clint Eastwood of
philosophy. Trouble is, the cheroot-ash sometimes falls on the keyboard and the
poncho attracts the cat.
Jan:
- what is a *partial* vacuum ? (I mean, how would a definition of
a partial vacuum look like, without the use of the term 'vacuum' ?
Jud:
I dunno — you tell me — you're the one who introduced the notion of a what
[whoever it is] called it a 'good' vacuum. All I am saying is that when I
wrote to Michael I didn't mention a *good vacuum. * I referred to a *vacuum.*
Jan:
Because if you do, then you inevitably fall victim to some kind of
circular argumentation. Like f.i.: a *partial* vacuum, is a *vacuum*
that ....... )
Jud:
No, Jan - I am not falling *victim* to any kind of argument — you are.
I wrote to Michael that a vacuum cannot exist — and a vacuum plainly cannot
exist — so I am not the *victim* of anything or anybody.
Jan:
- how can you, as a nominalist, say you are denying the reality of a
vacuum,
Jud:
If a vacuum isn't achieved then why kid oneself that it has been
accomplished? That reminds me of Bush and his: *We have won the war * speech.
I'm not a Heideggerian or an American Republican remember, so I am not in
the business of pretence — pretending the war's over or pretending in a
gimmick like *Dasein* — it's simply not my cup of tea. ;-)
I call a spade a spade, and a vacuum a vacuum — if it is only half a spade I
call it half a spade — if it is a partial vacuum I call it *a partial
vacuum.*
Jan:
if you at the same time claim that they not exist ? (I mean,
if you deny or doubt something, you have to have knowledge of that
something what you're denying or doubting ? How can you nominally deny
something if the reality it refers to doesn't exists ?)
Jud:
I am not denying that there are conditions where what we describe or refer
to as * a partial vacuum* can be achieved.
I have a vacuum flask as it happens. And when I go out demonstrating
against B-Liar and Bush and Fox-hunting and all the rest of it I take my *vacuum
flask* with me. Of course it is NOT REALLY as *vacuum flask* it is an insulated
bottle, whereby I fill it up with good old English tea and it displaces the
air. The tea usually remains hot/warm for a couple of hours. I do not
believe that a *vacuum* exists, and I doubt very much if you can find a proper
scientist who will put his money where his mouth is and say that a *vacuum* DOES
exist??? [excuse the 3-question marks]
Bottom line? I do not believe that a true *vacuum* is physically possible
either now or in the future. Therefore I stick by my original statement that:
*Nothing can arrive in a vacuum for neither nothing nor a vacuum can exist.*
If you can PROVE that either *nothing* or a *vacuum * exist — then please
let me be your agent and business manager — for you are going to be a richer
man than Bill Gates - the Heidegger Industry will be peanuts compared to the
moolah you are going to rake in.
Jealously,
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
E-mail Discussion List:
nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---