Science > Philosophy > Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people.
| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"John Jones" |
| Date: |
11 Jan 2008 02:59:35 PM |
| Object: |
Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
As we saw in 2a, there is a certain asymmetry in Kant's parallelism
thesis between outer and inner sense. For it appears that the
parallelism offers sensible representations as belonging 'to me', rather
than being of me.In other words, inner sense does not seem able to
represent itself (I, soul, etc) as object.
The lack of a parallelism can also be discerned in the nature of
experience, equated with empirical knowledge. Knowledge for Kant is
'judgemental'. In judgements of outer experience representations are of
the object.
This object is not a 'bare particular'. Even where Kant suggests an
object particular in his formulation of 'something in general = x', this
refers to the transcendental object or the object considered
transcendentally, and not of the object as an object of outer
experience. The object of outer experience is simply taken under some
description or other, with no particular underlying it.
But then inner sense cannot represent any object to itself because it
has no manifold of its own. This might seem circular at this point. Not
being able to represent itself as object, and not having a manifold of
its own would seem to amount to the same thing.
So on that note, I declare myself done for the day and will return with
more enmteratinment on this important issue in a day or so. Goodbye, or
as Kant would say in translated German, goodbye.
.
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
11 Jan 2008 07:02:23 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:59:35 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
As we saw in 2a, there is a certain asymmetry in Kant's parallelism
thesis between outer and inner sense. For it appears that the
parallelism offers sensible representations as belonging 'to me', rather
than being of me.In other words, inner sense does not seem able to
represent itself (I, soul, etc) as object.
Because they are not sensible intuitions. The representation of 'self'
is purely intellectual. It is transcendental. No matter how many
moments of access you have to introspection they will never bring
you the unchanging 'self' as a cause underlying these changing
representations. Or as Rand would say, there is continuity of
consciousness, although she never took her thought any further than
that.
So your distinction between 'belonging to me' and 'being of me' is
more a distinction between that which is the content -- a manifold of
inner representations -- and that which is 'container' -- an
apprehension of self which is continuous.
The lack of a parallelism can also be discerned in the nature of
experience, equated with empirical knowledge. Knowledge for Kant is
'judgemental'. In judgements of outer experience representations are of
the object.
This object is not a 'bare particular'. Even where Kant suggests an
object particular in his formulation of 'something in general = x',
this refers to the transcendental object or the object considered
transcendentally, and not of the object as an object of outer
experience. The object of outer experience is simply taken under some
description or other, with no particular underlying it.
But then inner sense cannot represent any object to itself because it
has no manifold of its own. This might seem circular at this point. Not
being able to represent itself as object, and not having a manifold of
its own would seem to amount to the same thing.
The first sentence should read: But then inner sense cannot represent
itself as object to itself because it has no manifold of its own.
So on that note, I declare myself done for the day and will return with
more enmteratinment on this important issue in a day or so. Goodbye, or
as Kant would say in translated German, goodbye.
If only it was that easy to translate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You luckypeople. |
11 Jan 2008 10:33:47 PM |
|
|
On Jan 12, 10:02=A0am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Or as Rand would say, there is continuity of
consciousness, although she never took her thought any further than
that.
Where would she take it? Into the world of Kantain stupidity and make-
believe?
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
12 Jan 2008 05:11:50 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:41ad11ae-d6eb-47d2-9f2c-763fe1d5a938@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 12, 10:02 am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Or as Rand would say, there is continuity of
consciousness, although she never took her thought any further than
that.
Where would she take it? Into the world of Kantain stupidity and make-
believe?
Michael Gordge
-----------
She could take it to the land of non-talking talking savages.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You luckypeople. |
12 Jan 2008 05:17:38 AM |
|
|
On Jan 12, 8:11=A0pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
..... take it to the land of non-talking talking savages.
Which in the world of Kantian stupidity is one in the same place,
you're not letting your side down thats for sure Timmmm.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
12 Jan 2008 05:31:55 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:96cd4e2e-ad5e-45e9-9e5d-df285d7d3be6@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 12, 8:11 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
..... take it to the land of non-talking talking savages.
Which in the world of Kantian stupidity is one in the same place,
you're not letting your side down thats for sure Timmmm.
MG
---------------
How's that shagger? You're yet to defend your masters assertion, why? Are
you scared? Or do you have non-talking talking savages in kiwi land? Perhaps
Hillary bought you one back from Everest?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
12 Jan 2008 10:18:03 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:17:38 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 12, 8:11 pm, "Tim" <qw...@qwerty.com> wrote:
..... take it to the land of non-talking talking savages.
Which in the world of Kantian stupidity is one in the same place,
you're not letting your side down thats for sure Timmmm.
The savage who cannot speak declares an axiom and ends the debate once
and for all at the end of a club.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
12 Jan 2008 10:16:49 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:33:47 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 12, 10:02 am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Or as Rand would say, there is continuity of
consciousness, although she never took her thought any further than
that.
Where would she take it? Into the world of Kantain stupidity and make-
believe?
"Kant is wrong" is axiomatic, it serves to protect the continuity of
Randroid consciousness and to identify explicitly the omission of all
facts and evidence. [ITOE p. 56]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You luckypeople. |
12 Jan 2008 06:44:11 PM |
|
|
On Jan 13, 1:16=A0am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kant is wrong" is axiomatic,
Only after you've constructed yet another Kantian bridge between axiom
and accusation.
He who asserts the positive bears the responsibility of proof.
Kant is wrong, in reality is an accusation, remains an accusation
until substaniated with non-contradicting evidence.
it serves to protect..........
On the contrary, the construction of bridges between antonym concepts
is an axiomatic requirement of keeping the Kantian's nightmare alive.
Explain again the four lane bridges you've constructed between
subjective and objective. between reality and imagination, if for no
other reason than a laugh.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You luckypeople. |
12 Jan 2008 08:08:01 PM |
|
|
On Jan 12, 4:44=A0pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 13, 1:16=A0am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kant is wrong" is axiomatic,
Only after you've constructed yet another Kantian bridge between axiom
and accusation.
He who asserts the positive bears the responsibility of proof.
Kant is wrong, in reality is an accusation, remains an accusation
until substaniated with non-contradicting evidence.
Actually anyone who asserts must be prepared to defend what he or she
asserts. If you assert that Kant is wrong and claim that you don't
need any defense of the claim then your making non-assertions. In
America there is a supposition of inocence till proved, beyond a
reasonable dounb, guilty.
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on
the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for
side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden
of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal
to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following
form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests
on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X
=2E
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it.
This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim
of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is
assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such
cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on.
In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant
debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For
example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until
proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As
another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the
affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of
proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot,
psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
The argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance") or argument by
lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that
a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a
premise is false only because it has not been proved true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Famous in the history of science is the (argument _ad_ignorantiam)
given in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of
his time the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen
through his telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced
that the moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian
science had long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see
what appear to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect
sphere, because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an
invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the
perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
it serves to protect..........
On the contrary, the construction of bridges between antonym concepts
is an axiomatic requirement of keeping the Kantian's nightmare alive.
Explain again the four lane bridges you've constructed between
subjective and objective. between reality and imagination, if for no
other reason than a laugh.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You luckypeople. |
12 Jan 2008 11:34:57 PM |
|
|
On Jan 13, 11:08=A0am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually anyone who asserts must be prepared to defend what he or she
asserts. If you assert that Kant is wrong...........
Bridge construction expert Melon asserted that "Kant is Wrong" was an
objectivist's "axiom".
In reality the objective thinker would say as I said, its not its an
axiom without the construction of a bridge between axiom and
accusation. But I'm not surprise to see you trying to construct a
bridge to another topic.
What bridges did Hume construct Mortal?
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You luckypeople. |
14 Jan 2008 09:47:10 PM |
|
|
On Jan 12, 9:34=A0pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 13, 11:08=A0am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually anyone who asserts must be prepared to defend what he or she
asserts. If you assert that Kant is wrong...........
Bridge construction expert Melon asserted that "Kant is Wrong" was an
objectivist's =A0"axiom".
In reality the objective thinker would say as I said, its not its an
axiom without the construction of a bridge between axiom and
accusation. But I'm not surprise to see you trying to construct a
bridge to another topic.
What bridges did Hume construct Mortal?
MG
Why was Kant wrong? You are saying something like that but a s usual
you imagine that this assertion needs no proof or defense. I don't
accept that, so please explain how you support such a belief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
14 Jan 2008 11:23:48 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:47:10 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 12, 9:34 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 13, 11:08 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually anyone who asserts must be prepared to defend what he or she
asserts. If you assert that Kant is wrong...........
Bridge construction expert Melon asserted that "Kant is Wrong" was an
objectivist's "axiom".
In reality the objective thinker would say as I said, its not its an
axiom without the construction of a bridge between axiom and
accusation. But I'm not surprise to see you trying to construct a
bridge to another topic.
What bridges did Hume construct Mortal?
MG
Why was Kant wrong? You are saying something like that but a s usual
you imagine that this assertion needs no proof or defense. I don't
accept that, so please explain how you support such a belief.
Like I said, that Kant is wrong is axiomatic to Objectivist
epistemology --
"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of
reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or
broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all
knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or
experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which
all proofs and explanations rest." [ITOE, p. 55]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You luckypeople. |
17 Jan 2008 01:03:00 AM |
|
|
On Jan 14, 9:23=A0pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:47:10 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 12, 9:34=A0pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 13, 11:08=A0am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually anyone who asserts must be prepared to defend what he or she=
asserts. If you assert that Kant is wrong...........
Bridge construction expert Melon asserted that "Kant is Wrong" was an
objectivist's =A0"axiom".
In reality the objective thinker would say as I said, its not its an
axiom without the construction of a bridge between axiom and
accusation. But I'm not surprise to see you trying to construct a
bridge to another topic.
What bridges did Hume construct Mortal?
MG
Why was Kant wrong? You are saying something like that but a s usual
you imagine that this assertion needs no proof or defense. I don't
accept that, so please explain how you support such a belief.
Like I said, that Kant is wrong is axiomatic to Objectivist
epistemology --
"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of
reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or
broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all
knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or
experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which
all proofs and explanations rest." [ITOE, p. 55]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Kant is wrong" is theoretical and inductive. How do you turn it into
a deductive necessity, whereby you show conclusively that it is
"impossible" that Kant was right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
17 Jan 2008 01:10:27 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:03:00 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 14, 9:23 pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:47:10 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 12, 9:34 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 13, 11:08 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually anyone who asserts must be prepared to defend what he or she
asserts. If you assert that Kant is wrong...........
Bridge construction expert Melon asserted that "Kant is Wrong" was an
objectivist's "axiom".
In reality the objective thinker would say as I said, its not its an
axiom without the construction of a bridge between axiom and
accusation. But I'm not surprise to see you trying to construct a
bridge to another topic.
What bridges did Hume construct Mortal?
MG
Why was Kant wrong? You are saying something like that but a s usual
you imagine that this assertion needs no proof or defense. I don't
accept that, so please explain how you support such a belief.
Like I said, that Kant is wrong is axiomatic to Objectivist
epistemology --
"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of
reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or
broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all
knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or
experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which
all proofs and explanations rest." [ITOE, p. 55]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Kant is wrong" is theoretical and inductive. How do you turn it into
a deductive necessity, whereby you show conclusively that it is
"impossible" that Kant was right?
It is the Word of Ayn Rand. Thus "Kant is Wrong" is an "axiomatic"
commandment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You luckypeople. |
20 Jan 2008 09:08:30 PM |
|
|
On Jan 16, 11:10=A0pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:03:00 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 14, 9:23=A0pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:47:10 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 12, 9:34=A0pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 13, 11:08=A0am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote=
:
Actually anyone who asserts must be prepared to defend what he or =
she
asserts. If you assert that Kant is wrong...........
Bridge construction expert Melon asserted that "Kant is Wrong" was a=
n
objectivist's =A0"axiom".
In reality the objective thinker would say as I said, its not its an=
axiom without the construction of a bridge between axiom and
accusation. But I'm not surprise to see you trying to construct a
bridge to another topic.
What bridges did Hume construct Mortal?
MG
Why was Kant wrong? You are saying something like that but a s usual
you imagine that this assertion needs no proof or defense. I don't
accept that, so please explain how you support such a belief.
Like I said, that Kant is wrong is axiomatic to Objectivist
epistemology --
"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of
reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or
broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all
knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or
experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which
all proofs and explanations rest." [ITOE, p. 55]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Kant is wrong" is theoretical and inductive. How do you turn it into
a deductive necessity, whereby you show conclusively that it is
"impossible" that Kant was right?
It is the Word of Ayn Rand. Thus "Kant is Wrong" is an "axiomatic"
commandment.-
So all I have to do is say; "it is the word of me" and then I can say
that gravity doesn't exist and you must accept it because it is now
axiomatic?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
20 Jan 2008 09:37:06 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:08:30 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 11:10 pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:03:00 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 14, 9:23 pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:47:10 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 12, 9:34 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 13, 11:08 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually anyone who asserts must be prepared to defend what he or she
asserts. If you assert that Kant is wrong...........
Bridge construction expert Melon asserted that "Kant is Wrong" was an
objectivist's "axiom".
In reality the objective thinker would say as I said, its not its an
axiom without the construction of a bridge between axiom and
accusation. But I'm not surprise to see you trying to construct a
bridge to another topic.
What bridges did Hume construct Mortal?
MG
Why was Kant wrong? You are saying something like that but a s usual
you imagine that this assertion needs no proof or defense. I don't
accept that, so please explain how you support such a belief.
Like I said, that Kant is wrong is axiomatic to Objectivist
epistemology --
"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of
reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or
broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all
knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or
experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which
all proofs and explanations rest." [ITOE, p. 55]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Kant is wrong" is theoretical and inductive. How do you turn it into
a deductive necessity, whereby you show conclusively that it is
"impossible" that Kant was right?
It is the Word of Ayn Rand. Thus "Kant is Wrong" is an "axiomatic"
commandment.-
So all I have to do is say; "it is the word of me" and then I can say
that gravity doesn't exist and you must accept it because it is now
axiomatic?
Are you Ayn Rand then?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You luckypeople. |
21 Jan 2008 01:48:57 PM |
|
|
On Jan 20, 7:37=A0pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:08:30 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 11:10=A0pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:03:00 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 14, 9:23=A0pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:47:10 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 12, 9:34=A0pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:=
On Jan 13, 11:08=A0am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wr=
ote:
Actually anyone who asserts must be prepared to defend what he =
or she
asserts. If you assert that Kant is wrong...........
Bridge construction expert Melon asserted that "Kant is Wrong" wa=
s an
objectivist's =A0"axiom".
In reality the objective thinker would say as I said, its not its=
an
axiom without the construction of a bridge between axiom and
accusation. But I'm not surprise to see you trying to construct a=
bridge to another topic.
What bridges did Hume construct Mortal?
MG
Why was Kant wrong? You are saying something like that but a s usua=
l
you imagine that this assertion needs no proof or defense. I don't
accept that, so please explain how you support such a belief.
Like I said, that Kant is wrong is axiomatic to Objectivist
epistemology --
"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of
reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or
broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all
knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or
experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which
all proofs and explanations rest." [ITOE, p. 55]- Hide quoted text -=
- Show quoted text -
"Kant is wrong" is theoretical and inductive. How do you turn it into
a deductive necessity, whereby you show conclusively that it is
"impossible" that Kant was right?
It is the Word of Ayn Rand. Thus "Kant is Wrong" is an "axiomatic"
commandment.-
So all I have to do is say; "it is the word of me" and then I can say
that gravity doesn't exist and you must accept it because it is now
axiomatic?
Are you Ayn Rand then?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Only Rand can create axioms?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
21 Jan 2008 06:29:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:48:57 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 20, 7:37 pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:08:30 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 11:10 pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:03:00 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 14, 9:23 pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:47:10 -0800 (PST), Immortalist
<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 12, 9:34 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 13, 11:08 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually anyone who asserts must be prepared to defend what he or she
asserts. If you assert that Kant is wrong...........
Bridge construction expert Melon asserted that "Kant is Wrong" was an
objectivist's "axiom".
In reality the objective thinker would say as I said, its not its an
axiom without the construction of a bridge between axiom and
accusation. But I'm not surprise to see you trying to construct a
bridge to another topic.
What bridges did Hume construct Mortal?
MG
Why was Kant wrong? You are saying something like that but a s usual
you imagine that this assertion needs no proof or defense. I don't
accept that, so please explain how you support such a belief.
Like I said, that Kant is wrong is axiomatic to Objectivist
epistemology --
"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of
reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or
broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all
knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or
experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which
all proofs and explanations rest." [ITOE, p. 55]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Kant is wrong" is theoretical and inductive. How do you turn it into
a deductive necessity, whereby you show conclusively that it is
"impossible" that Kant was right?
It is the Word of Ayn Rand. Thus "Kant is Wrong" is an "axiomatic"
commandment.-
So all I have to do is say; "it is the word of me" and then I can say
that gravity doesn't exist and you must accept it because it is now
axiomatic?
Are you Ayn Rand then?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Only Rand can create axioms?
Only Rand and those she approved of. The rest has been left up to her
intellectual hare.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
13 Jan 2008 02:00:36 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:44:11 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 13, 1:16 am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kant is wrong" is axiomatic,
Only after you've constructed yet another Kantian bridge between axiom
and accusation.
He who asserts the positive bears the responsibility of proof.
Kant is wrong, in reality is an accusation, remains an accusation
until substaniated with non-contradicting evidence.
it serves to protect..........
On the contrary, the construction of bridges between antonym concepts
is an axiomatic requirement of keeping the Kantian's nightmare alive.
Explain again the four lane bridges you've constructed between
subjective and objective. between reality and imagination, if for no
other reason than a laugh.
"Howard Roark laughed." Of course the only reason you continued
reading on is because you then read that Roark was standing there
naked while laughing and you like naked men.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You luckypeople. |
13 Jan 2008 02:21:25 AM |
|
|
On Jan 13, 5:00=A0pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:44:11 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 13, 1:16=A0am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kant is wrong" is axiomatic,
Only after you've constructed yet another Kantian bridge between axiom
and accusation.
He who asserts the positive bears the responsibility of proof.
Kant is wrong, in reality is an accusation, remains an accusation
until substaniated with non-contradicting evidence.
it serves to protect..........
On the contrary, the construction of bridges between antonym concepts
is an axiomatic requirement of keeping the Kantian's nightmare alive.
Explain again the four lane bridges you've constructed between
subjective and objective. between reality and imagination, if for no
other reason than a laugh.
"Howard Roark laughed." Of course the only reason you continued
reading on is because you then read that Roark was standing there
naked while laughing and you like naked men.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Oh dear me things are getting to ewe aren't they Melon?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
13 Jan 2008 11:09:27 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:21:25 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 13, 5:00 pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:44:11 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 13, 1:16 am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kant is wrong" is axiomatic,
Only after you've constructed yet another Kantian bridge between axiom
and accusation.
He who asserts the positive bears the responsibility of proof.
Kant is wrong, in reality is an accusation, remains an accusation
until substaniated with non-contradicting evidence.
it serves to protect..........
On the contrary, the construction of bridges between antonym concepts
is an axiomatic requirement of keeping the Kantian's nightmare alive.
Explain again the four lane bridges you've constructed between
subjective and objective. between reality and imagination, if for no
other reason than a laugh.
"Howard Roark laughed." Of course the only reason you continued
reading on is because you then read that Roark was standing there
naked while laughing and you like naked men.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Oh dear me things are getting to ewe aren't they Melon?
So it's true then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You luckypeople. |
20 Jan 2008 09:52:59 PM |
|
|
On Jan 14, 2:09=A0am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
So it's true then.
Which Kantian version of true are you using today Melon?
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
20 Jan 2008 09:57:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:52:59 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 14, 2:09 am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
So it's true then.
Which Kantian version of true are you using today Melon?
You're a libertarian, so you're either
A. A gay
B. A drug user
C. All of the above
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You luckypeople. |
21 Jan 2008 02:59:06 AM |
|
|
On Jan 21, 12:57=A0pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You're a libertarian,
Nope, I dont need a title for myself.
But I will say that Libertarianz (the ONLY NZ freedom political party)
is the closest to my own political ideas, which is why I support them.
so you're either
=2E........
Oh ***** me dead, a fucking right wing conserative tosser, I've been
treating you too fucking nice Melon, scum of the earth the
conservativist's are, pretending liberty fucking freedom fraudsters,
to conserve means to be anti-change, anti-change is almost as anti-
human as humans can get. Conservative because your daddy was.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
21 Jan 2008 03:12:03 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:59:06 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 21, 12:57 pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You're a libertarian,
Nope, I dont need a title for myself.
But I will say that Libertarianz (the ONLY NZ freedom political party)
is the closest to my own political ideas, which is why I support them.
so you're either
.........
Oh ***** me dead, a fucking right wing conserative tosser, I've been
treating you too fucking nice Melon, scum of the earth the
conservativist's are, pretending liberty fucking freedom fraudsters,
to conserve means to be anti-change, anti-change is almost as anti-
human as humans can get. Conservative because your daddy was.
So I'm at least 1/2 - 1/3 right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You luckypeople. |
21 Jan 2008 03:41:36 PM |
|
|
On Jan 22, 6:12=A0am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:59:06 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 21, 12:57=A0pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You're a libertarian,
Nope, I dont need a title for myself.
But I will say that Libertarianz (the ONLY NZ freedom political party)
is the closest to my own political ideas, which is why I support them.
so you're either
.........
Oh ***** me dead, a fucking right wing conserative tosser, I've been
treating you too fucking nice Melon, scum of the earth the
conservativist's are, pretending liberty fucking freedom fraudsters,
to conserve means to be anti-change, anti-change is almost as anti-
human as humans can get. Conservative because your daddy was.
So I'm at least 1/2 - 1/3 right.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
There is nothing ever right with a conservative right winger you twit.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
21 Jan 2008 06:40:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:41:36 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 22, 6:12 am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:59:06 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 21, 12:57 pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You're a libertarian,
Nope, I dont need a title for myself.
But I will say that Libertarianz (the ONLY NZ freedom political party)
is the closest to my own political ideas, which is why I support them.
so you're either
.........
Oh ***** me dead, a fucking right wing conserative tosser, I've been
treating you too fucking nice Melon, scum of the earth the
conservativist's are, pretending liberty fucking freedom fraudsters,
to conserve means to be anti-change, anti-change is almost as anti-
human as humans can get. Conservative because your daddy was.
So I'm at least 1/2 - 1/3 right.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
There is nothing ever right with a conservative right winger you twit.
I don't subscribe to any political parties or stances, I despise them
all, some more than others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You luckypeople. |
22 Jan 2008 12:21:20 AM |
|
|
On Jan 22, 9:40=A0am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't subscribe to any political parties or stances,
Soo you're hoping that lie will excuse you behaving like a disgusting
Nazi extreme right wing control freak conservative fascist, which your
question clearly shows, is where your ethical (political) standards
and allegiances lie?
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: Kant Blah 2b: Inner sense- moving to a conclusion. You lucky people. |
22 Jan 2008 12:50:55 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:21:20 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Jan 22, 9:40 am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't subscribe to any political parties or stances,
Soo you're hoping that lie will excuse you behaving like a disgusting
Nazi extreme right wing control freak conservative fascist, which your
question clearly shows, is where your ethical (political) standards
and allegiances lie?
So are you a needle-pusher, a snorter, a puffer or a huffer?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
