| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Michael Gordge" |
| Date: |
31 Dec 2007 05:22:18 PM |
| Object: |
10 Minutes Ago |
There is a claim by Kantian Mal that he has given the meaning in
reality of "10 minutes ago", when in reality he hasn't.
All he has to do is explain the meaning of "10 minutes ago" and he
must do so without contradicting his idea that man has no knowledge of
time which is dependent upon objects awakening his senses.
To help his along, [sic]... "In respect of time, therefore, no
knowledge of Kant's depends upon objects awakening his experiences"
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 10 Minutes Ago |
31 Dec 2007 10:58:46 PM |
|
|
On Dec 31, 4:22 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
There is a claim by Kantian Mal that he has given the meaning in
reality of "10 minutes ago", when in reality he hasn't.
All he has to do is explain the meaning of "10 minutes ago" and he
must do so without contradicting his idea that man has no knowledge of
time which is dependent upon objects awakening his senses.
To help his along, [sic]... "In respect of time, therefore, no
knowledge of Kant's depends upon objects awakening his experiences"
Michael Gordge
"In the order of time, therefore, we have no knowledge antecedent to
experience, and with experience all our knowledge begins."
Immanuel Kant, 1781
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: 10 Minutes Ago |
01 Jan 2008 01:37:38 AM |
|
|
On Jan 1, 1:58=A0pm, wrote:
"In the order of time, therefore, we have no knowledge antecedent to
experience, and with experience all our knowledge begins."
Immanuel Kant, 1781
The context of the last sentence, is the question which preceeds it.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/kant-cpr.html
"That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt.
For how is it possible that the faculty of cognition should be
awakened into exercise otherwise than by means of objects which affect
our senses, and partly of themselves produce representations, partly
rouse our powers of understanding into activity, to compare to
connect, or to separate these, and so to convert the raw material of
our sensuous impressions into a knowledge of objects, which is called
experience? In respect of time, therefore, no knowledge of ours is
antecedent to experience, but begins with it."
Immanuel Kant:
The Critique of Pure Reason, 1781
As you can see Mal, by "antecedent to experience" Kant was clearing
talking about "awakening the faculty of cognition by objects affecting
senses"
Clearly Kant wanted to seperate man's knowledge of time and made it
clear, that man's (his and yours anyway) knowledge of time was NOT
dependent upon objects affecting the senses.
Why ever not Mal?
Why seperate man's knowledge of the concept time from his knowledge of
the concept distance?
There is no time, therefore no knowledge of time possible, with matter
traveling a distance, so why seperate man's knowledge of time from his
knowledge of distance?
UNLESS of course you want man's knowledge of time to be just like the
mystics knowledge of god, 100% PURE imagination, thats it eh?
Sheeeeeesh no wonder you cant tel us what "10 minutes ago" means Mal,
Kant forget to tell you HOW.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 10 Minutes Ago |
01 Jan 2008 06:18:48 AM |
|
|
On Jan 1, 12:37 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 1, 1:58 pm, wrote:
"In the order of time, therefore, we have no knowledge antecedent to
experience, and with experience all our knowledge begins."
Immanuel Kant, 1781
The context of the last sentence, is the question which preceeds it.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/kant-cpr.html
"That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt.
For how is it possible that the faculty of cognition should be
awakened into exercise otherwise than by means of objects which affect
our senses, and partly of themselves produce representations, partly
rouse our powers of understanding into activity, to compare to
connect, or to separate these, and so to convert the raw material of
our sensuous impressions into a knowledge of objects, which is called
experience? In respect of time, therefore, no knowledge of ours is
antecedent to experience, but begins with it."
Immanuel Kant:
The Critique of Pure Reason, 1781
As you can see Mal, by "antecedent to experience" Kant was clearing
talking about "awakening the faculty of cognition by objects affecting
senses"
Clearly Kant wanted to seperate man's knowledge of time and made it
clear, that man's (his and yours anyway) knowledge of time was NOT
dependent upon objects affecting the senses.
If Kant wrote "no knowledge" then that would include "time."
And "clearly"? How can you say that Kant is clear in some respects
and obscure in others? Don't you believe that Kant is an
obscurantist? If so, then how can you be so sure of your own
interpretation?
This has been the issue with Rand's criticism of Kant since day
one.
Why ever not Mal?
Why seperate man's knowledge of the concept time from his knowledge of
the concept distance?
There is no time, therefore no knowledge of time possible, with matter
traveling a distance, so why seperate man's knowledge of time from his
knowledge of distance?
UNLESS of course you want man's knowledge of time to be just like the
mystics knowledge of god, 100% PURE imagination, thats it eh?
Sheeeeeesh no wonder you cant tel us what "10 minutes ago" means Mal,
Kant forget to tell you HOW.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: 10 Minutes Ago |
01 Jan 2008 01:47:36 AM |
|
|
On Jan 1, 4:37=A0pm, Michael Gordge
CORRECTION
There is no time, therefore no knowledge of time possible, withOUT matter
traveling a distance, so why seperate man's knowledge of time from his
knowledge of distance?
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
