Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [The Existential Society] on Philosophy

Expand Messages
  • <none>
    I think Kant made this issue pretty clear: existence isn t a predicate. It s not an attribute that something has. Once you begin a sentence with the word I,
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 23, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I think Kant made this issue pretty clear: existence isn't a predicate.
      It's not an attribute that something has. Once you begin a sentence
      with the word I, you have assumed its existence (the fact of existence
      is assumed by the subject of the sentence, in other words, not an
      attribute described by the predicate of the sentence). So once you
      have a speaking I, there's no longer any question of its existence:
      proof is moot.

      This statement is only tautological if you use it as a proof of
      existence: if you begin with the assumption that questions about
      existence are already settled beforehand, then it is not. It is then a
      claim that any question about the existence of the subject is a
      ridiculous question to begin with, just as ridiculous as arguments for
      the proof of the subject.

      This has nothing to do with the nature or origin of the I, simply the
      existence of the I.

      Jim R.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.