Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 06:29:51 EST
Subject: Being & Time 2



--part1_1f0.595553e.2bb980af_boundary
Content-Language: en

Jud wrote:



If looking over my shoulder we both see, touch, smell the leaf, etc., and
apprehend its greenness we have temporal confirmation existential
confirmation. All other propositions should be treated with caution however.



Anthony:

No Jud, I'm not letting that little slight-of-hand go. Any propositions
concerning the actual existence of the leaf that you see over your shoulder
can also be found in a work of fiction, and therefore you cannot even
linguistically express that. So you are left with the position that you
cannot linguistically express that anything exists whatsoever, since
absolutely any proposition can be found in work of fiction. Remember, this
follows from what YOU said. I am not claiming that it is impossible to say
(linguistically express) that anything exists.





Jud:

No, I have never said that because a phrase can be found in a work of fiction
that the same phrase issued and verified as a truth statement cannot be said
of a veridical existing temporal entity. Nor have I claimed anywhere that it
is impossible to say (linguistically express) that anything exists.

Remember this is YOUR weird interpretation - not mine. It was YOU that said:

=E2=80=9CAny propositions concerning the actual existence of the leaf that you see
over your shoulder can also be found in a work of fiction, and therefore you
cannot even linguistically express that.=E2=80=9D  Remember this is YOUR weird
interpretation - not mine and I have no intention of letting you forget it.

Now a comment on your style of debate.  The Socratic method of argumentation
- elenchus, had become outmoded even by the Aristotelian period, and as the
leading Socratic scholar of the 20th century Vlastos pointed out, the
procedure of eliciting contradiction in debate to score points can at best
hope to establish the consistency of the interlocutor's beliefs - not the
truth. Plato and Aristotle and many other Greek philosophers finally realised
that it is ultimately frustrating.
In your responses below you have answered me not in a logical fashion or  in
the spirit of genuine investigation, but in an adversarial elenchusan or
rhetorical fashion.  You persist in caricaturing  the manner of an amateur
version of the Perry Mason Show, where the wheel-chair borne Mason is
characterized as the devilishly clever "all knowing" one, who in Socratic
cross-examinatory fashion always manages to get the defendant to contradict
himself, and  in a  melodramatic  finale brings the sobbing accused into a
full courtroom confession of his wrong-doing and mistakes, whilst the
background music switches to a dramatic plangent of shivering violins
punctuated by blasts from the brass section as each dramatic confessional
revelation is announced.

It is too crude a method to use in grown-up ontological discussion, and just
unlooses the elenchusic Socratic bull in the philosophical china shop, the
result being a lot of broken cognitive crockery and an agora empty of
philosophers, and thus gets no questions answered.  This is the reason why
Plato and Aristotle and co finally got pissed off with the Socratic method of
adversarial or confrontational interrogation.

The second distasteful aspect of your method is that of putting words or
spurious extrapolations of your own into other people's mouths, which you
have done before and you have done again below. You keep repeating the words:
=E2=80=9CRemember this follows from what YOU said,=E2=80=9D when patently nothing of what
you say follows from what I said at all. The only one that this type of
behaviour fools [which I have noted in your exchanges with others on this
list] is you Anthony. You do yourself an injustice, for you have a fine mind
and are quite capable of making your position clear without resorting to this
antagonistic methodology.



I have no idea from whence you have dreamt up the bizarre and muddled notion
that because the statement =E2=80=9CThe leaf is green=E2=80=9D is confirmed=20as a truth
statement when the leaf in question is seen to exist, that it follows that
because a similar statement can also be found in a work of fiction for which
no corresponding temporal referent to the subject exists, that therefore one
cannot even linguistically express that an actual leaf exists.

Where on earth did you find this notion?

One can repeat the phrase =E2=80=9CThe leaf is green=E2=80=9D until one is blue in the face,
but the sentence is only a true one if there exists in the world a definite,
real referent, which is associated with the words =E2=80=9Cthe leaf.=E2=80=9D  If there is
no referent then the subject is a fictional one.



Jud [previously]

Experience is vital in this area (I am an experientialist) and as one goes
through life one accumulates knowledge and data concerning what exists in
what ways and what does not exist in any way or ways. My advice to you all is
whenever you come across an IS-word in a sentence - treat it circumspectly -
if in doubt as to the veracity of the predicational information it attributes
to the self-existentialised subject - check it out



Anthony:

But this is non-sensical given what you said before, because even the phrase
"self-existentialised subject" does not express what you want it to, because
that phrase can be found in a work of fiction too, in which case the subject
would not exist. So you cannot even make sense of your own sentences now -
your sentence concerning some attribution to some "self-existentialised
subject" which could equally mean a non-self-existentialised subject such as
in a work of fiction. So now we have self-existentialised subject meaning a
non-self-existentialised subject too. Remember this follows from what YOU
said, so am not saying that nothing exists.



Jud:

No, I have never said that because a phrase can be found in a work of fiction
that the same phrase issued and verified as a truth statement cannot be said
of a veridical existing temporal entity. Nor have I claimed anywhere that it
is impossible to say (linguistically express) that anything exists.

Remember this is YOUR weird interpretation - not mine. It was YOU that said:

=E2=80=9CAny propositions concerning the actual existence of the leaf that you see
over your shoulder can also be found in a work of fiction, and therefore you
cannot even linguistically express that.=E2=80=9D  Remember this is YOUR weird
interpretation - not mine and I have no intention of letting you forget it.



Jud [previously]- for the IS-word is an icon that can be clicked in order to
access verificational information to support or reject the predicate as being
a truthful one.



Anthony:

That sentence is also non-sensical, since the words "verificational" and
"truthful" can also be found in works of fiction, in which case the objects
do not exist, and therefore cannot be verified. Remember this follows from
what YOU said, I am not saying that nothing exists.



Jud:

No, I have never said that because a phrase can be found in a work of fiction
that the same phrase issued and verified as a truth statement cannot be said
of a veridical existing temporal entity. Nor have I claimed anywhere that it
is impossible to say (linguistically express) that anything exists.

Remember this is YOUR weird interpretation - not mine. It was YOU that said:

=E2=80=9CAny propositions concerning the actual existence of the leaf that you see
over your shoulder can also be found in a work of fiction, and therefore you
cannot even linguistically express that.=E2=80=9D  Remember this is YOUR weird
interpretation - not mine and I have no intention of letting you forget it.


Jud [previously]
By clicking "IS" you are clicking yourself into verificational activity.

Circumstance and context play a vital part in any consideration of
prepositional veracity.

Anthony:
Veracity? Does that mean "veracity" as used in a work of fiction? Remember
this follows from what YOU said, I am not saying that nothing exists.

Jud:
No, I have never said that because a phrase can be found in a work of fiction
that the same phrase issued and verified as a truth statement cannot be said
of a veridical existing temporal entity. Nor have I claimed anywhere that it
is impossible to say (linguistically express) that anything exists.
Remember this is YOUR weird interpretation - not mine. It was YOU that said:
=E2=80=9CAny propositions concerning the actual existence of the leaf that you see
over your shoulder can also be found in a work of fiction, and therefore you
cannot even linguistically express that.=E2=80=9D  Remember this is YOUR weird
interpretation - not mine and I have no intention of letting you forget it.

Jud [previously]
Again you are right when you say that: "it is impossible to linguistically
express actual existence" for the simple reason that "existence" doesn't
exist - only existents [entities] exist, and not the state of their existing
Anthony:
No, that doesn't make sense either, because the phrase "existents exist" can
also be found in a work of fiction, in which case they do not exist. So now
"existents exist" can also mean "existents do not exist." Remember this
follows from what YOU said, I am not saying that actual existence is
impossible to linguistically express.

Jud:
No, I have never said that because a phrase can be found in a work of fiction
that the same phrase issued and verified as a truth statement cannot be said
of a veridical existing temporal entity. Nor have I claimed anywhere that it
is impossible to say (linguistically express) that anything exists.
Remember this is YOUR weird interpretation - not mine. It was YOU that said:
=E2=80=9CAny propositions concerning the actual existence of the leaf that you see
over your shoulder can also be found in a work of fiction, and therefore you
cannot even linguistically express that.=E2=80=9D  Remember this is YOUR weird
interpretation - not mine and I have no intention of letting you forget it.



Jud {previously]

The bottom line? In our ordinary lives we are forced to take most of the
existential claims on face value and on the basis of trust tempered by
experience. It depends on whom you are dealing with as regards to whether you
accept or believe that something exists or exists in a certain way. Most
sentences are asseverations so be careful.



Anthony:

No, according to what you said, ALL sentences can be found in a work of
fiction, and therefore contain absolutely no expression of fictional
existence over real existence (whatever that means). That is true of the
words "verify," "truthful," "actual existence," etc.



Jud:

No, I have never said that because a phrase can be found in a work of fiction
that the same phrase issued and verified as a truth statement cannot be said
of a veridical existing temporal entity. Nor have I claimed anywhere that it
is impossible to say (linguistically express) that anything exists.

Remember this is YOUR weird interpretation - not mine. It was YOU that said:

=E2=80=9CAny propositions concerning the actual existence of the leaf that you see
over your shoulder can also be found in a work of fiction, and therefore you
cannot even linguistically express that.=E2=80=9D  Remember this is YOUR weird
interpretation - not mine and I have no intention of letting you forget it.

Cheers,

Jud Evans.



--part1_1f0.595553e.2bb980af_boundary

HTML VERSION: