Hi Jud,
thanks for taking the time to write your extensive reply to my questions
and deliberations, i will try to do the same, but before i do i will sit on
it for a couple of days.
Yet i can't resist making some short comments already:
- But how do you know for sure somebody is a "classifier" or is busy
with "classifying", if you don't know what a "class" is, because a "class"
doesn't exist as you say. If we would observe the activity of the classifier,
there must be some concrete evidence that he (and we) has a notion of, is
dealing with or producing a class, to be called and reconized as classifier.
For someone to act as classifier he must have a meaningful notion of
what a class is, and he must be able to mis-classify too; and thus a class
must exist. I mean, he might as well be picking his nose or seducing his
neighbour's wife or burning his copy of SuZ ....
- The definition of a tautology you gave was "a logical statement that
is necessarily true, or an instance of a valid formula of propositional
logic. A complex proposition which is true independently of the truth
values of its constituent atomic propositions."
It clearly states "independently of the truth values of its constituent
atomic propositions", (where i said earlier "regardless of the truth
value of its components") which means that the "constituent atomic
propositions" don't have to be true at all, they very well can be false
[i.e. possess a negative truth value]. Yet despite there falsehood, this
leaves untouched the overall outcome of a tautology being necessarily
true. Therefore my "(2+2=5)=(2+2=5)" is a perfect tautology in the
sense of your definition (2) too. Btw. i dont buy your distinction
between def.(1) and def.(2), where do you have it from ?
- The thing about the five sensors, seems to be a misunderstanding
on my part. When i wrote: "experience via (one of) our five senses",
i only meant that in experience we sometimes use only the eyes, than
only the ears etc. and seldom all our five senses simultaneously. Your
answer prompted me to misunderstand that you were refering to a
sixth or seventh sensor.
- I agree with what you said about how we, in a philosophical sense,
arrive at an "a priori"; but once we have, than whatever is "a priori"
found and posited, immediately becomes a systemic dogma, without
further need of questioning or problematizing. I am in doubt about
the way you quickly substitute the "a priori" with the "universal" of
Being as the solution for your profound criticism, because i would
be more than cautious with translating Heidegger's "allgemeinste" as
"universal", especially in the sense that "die Allgemeinheit" here is
not meant as some genus [Gattung, i.e. a defined and fixed species],
but first of all as the *in-definable* .... but that's for later.
"Das Begriff >>Sein<< ist undefinierbar. Dies schloss man aus seiner
hoechsten Allgemeinheit." [SuZ:4]
yours,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
thanks for taking the time to write your extensive reply to my questions
and deliberations, i will try to do the same, but before i do i will sit on
it for a couple of days.
Yet i can't resist making some short comments already:
- But how do you know for sure somebody is a "classifier" or is busy
with "classifying", if you don't know what a "class" is, because a "class"
doesn't exist as you say. If we would observe the activity of the classifier,
there must be some concrete evidence that he (and we) has a notion of, is
dealing with or producing a class, to be called and reconized as classifier.
For someone to act as classifier he must have a meaningful notion of
what a class is, and he must be able to mis-classify too; and thus a class
must exist. I mean, he might as well be picking his nose or seducing his
neighbour's wife or burning his copy of SuZ ....
- The definition of a tautology you gave was "a logical statement that
is necessarily true, or an instance of a valid formula of propositional
logic. A complex proposition which is true independently of the truth
values of its constituent atomic propositions."
It clearly states "independently of the truth values of its constituent
atomic propositions", (where i said earlier "regardless of the truth
value of its components") which means that the "constituent atomic
propositions" don't have to be true at all, they very well can be false
[i.e. possess a negative truth value]. Yet despite there falsehood, this
leaves untouched the overall outcome of a tautology being necessarily
true. Therefore my "(2+2=5)=(2+2=5)" is a perfect tautology in the
sense of your definition (2) too. Btw. i dont buy your distinction
between def.(1) and def.(2), where do you have it from ?
- The thing about the five sensors, seems to be a misunderstanding
on my part. When i wrote: "experience via (one of) our five senses",
i only meant that in experience we sometimes use only the eyes, than
only the ears etc. and seldom all our five senses simultaneously. Your
answer prompted me to misunderstand that you were refering to a
sixth or seventh sensor.
- I agree with what you said about how we, in a philosophical sense,
arrive at an "a priori"; but once we have, than whatever is "a priori"
found and posited, immediately becomes a systemic dogma, without
further need of questioning or problematizing. I am in doubt about
the way you quickly substitute the "a priori" with the "universal" of
Being as the solution for your profound criticism, because i would
be more than cautious with translating Heidegger's "allgemeinste" as
"universal", especially in the sense that "die Allgemeinheit" here is
not meant as some genus [Gattung, i.e. a defined and fixed species],
but first of all as the *in-definable* .... but that's for later.
"Das Begriff >>Sein<< ist undefinierbar. Dies schloss man aus seiner
hoechsten Allgemeinheit." [SuZ:4]
yours,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---