| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
24 Dec 2007 02:58:50 PM |
| Object: |
Kantian basis for economic theory |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#The_first_formulation
In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant also posited the
"counter-utilitarian idea that there is a difference between
preferences and values and that considerations of individual rights
temper calculations of aggregate utility", a concept that is an axiom
in economics:
"Everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price
can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other
hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no
equivalent, has a dignity. But that which constitutes the condition
under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have mere
relative worth, i.e., price, but an intrinsic worth, i.e., a
dignity." (p. 53)
.
|
|
| User: "bernardZ" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
24 Dec 2007 10:40:22 PM |
|
|
In article <7e16e359-916a-4de8-953f-8c67450ac607
@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, says...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#The_first_formulation
In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant also posited the
"counter-utilitarian idea that there is a difference between
preferences and values and that considerations of individual rights
temper calculations of aggregate utility", a concept that is an axiom
in economics:
"Everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price
can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other
hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no
equivalent, has a dignity. But that which constitutes the condition
under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have mere
relative worth, i.e., price, but an intrinsic worth, i.e., a
dignity." (p. 53)
It is as if he is making two units of currency one price and the other
dignity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
24 Dec 2007 10:54:45 PM |
|
|
On Dec 24, 9:40 pm, bernardZ <Berna...@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <7e16e359-916a-4de8-953f-8c67450ac607
@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, says...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#The_first_formulation
In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant also posited the
"counter-utilitarian idea that there is a difference between
preferences and values and that considerations of individual rights
temper calculations of aggregate utility", a concept that is an axiom
in economics:
"Everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price
can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other
hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no
equivalent, has a dignity. But that which constitutes the condition
under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have mere
relative worth, i.e., price, but an intrinsic worth, i.e., a
dignity." (p. 53)
It is as if he is making two units of currency one price and the other
dignity.
Everything has a price but individuals have dignity, "considerations
of individual rights temper calculations of aggregate utility."
Individual rights theory trumps utilitarianism, man is not an
"economic animal," his value is infinitely greater than any worth
placed on him by social economic theories.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bernardZ" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
25 Dec 2007 04:55:22 AM |
|
|
In article <c904804a-21e7-46ed-aed1-9a5db2054ea9
@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Dec 24, 9:40 pm, bernardZ <Berna...@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <7e16e359-916a-4de8-953f-8c67450ac607
@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, says...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#The_first_formulation
In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant also posited the
"counter-utilitarian idea that there is a difference between
preferences and values and that considerations of individual rights
temper calculations of aggregate utility", a concept that is an axiom
in economics:
"Everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price
can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other
hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no
equivalent, has a dignity. But that which constitutes the condition
under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have mere
relative worth, i.e., price, but an intrinsic worth, i.e., a
dignity." (p. 53)
It is as if he is making two units of currency one price and the other
dignity.
Everything has a price but individuals have dignity, "considerations
of individual rights temper calculations of aggregate utility."
Individual rights theory trumps utilitarianism, man is not an
"economic animal," his value is infinitely greater than any worth
placed on him by social economic theories.
My point is that say someone saids to you privately that you are a fool
and someone else saids it publically in front of your family, is the
degree of the loss of dignity the same?
Now having said that if I lose some dignity and gain a $1,000,000 I can
live with that!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
25 Dec 2007 10:07:26 AM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 3:55 am, bernardZ <Berna...@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <c904804a-21e7-46ed-aed1-9a5db2054ea9
@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, says...
On Dec 24, 9:40 pm, bernardZ <Berna...@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <7e16e359-916a-4de8-953f-8c67450ac607
@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, says...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#The_first_formulation
In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant also posited the
"counter-utilitarian idea that there is a difference between
preferences and values and that considerations of individual rights
temper calculations of aggregate utility", a concept that is an axiom
in economics:
"Everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price
can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other
hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no
equivalent, has a dignity. But that which constitutes the condition
under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have mere
relative worth, i.e., price, but an intrinsic worth, i.e., a
dignity." (p. 53)
It is as if he is making two units of currency one price and the other
dignity.
Everything has a price but individuals have dignity, "considerations
of individual rights temper calculations of aggregate utility."
Individual rights theory trumps utilitarianism, man is not an
"economic animal," his value is infinitely greater than any worth
placed on him by social economic theories.
My point is that say someone saids to you privately that you are a fool
and someone else saids it publically in front of your family, is the
degree of the loss of dignity the same?
Yes, since dignity is not a relative social product, "But that which
constitutes the condition under which alone something can be an
end in itself does not have mere relative worth."
Now having said that if I lose some dignity and gain a $1,000,000 I can
live with that!
You can put a price on everything but human dignity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
25 Dec 2007 06:45:46 PM |
|
|
On Dec 26, 1:07=A0am, wrote:
You can put a price on everything but human dignity.
If that were true, socialism via mobocracry couldn't survive.
People VOTE to lose their dignity, in mobocracy, the price of your
dignity is only the vote you make to take another's dignity away.
Thats the trouble with Kantians, they ignore the sensory evidence.
Or were you for the first time in your life trying out epsitemology
Mal?
Michae Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
25 Dec 2007 07:50:05 PM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 5:45 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Dec 26, 1:07 am, wrote:
You can put a price on everything but human dignity.
If that were true, socialism via mobocracry couldn't survive.
People VOTE to lose their dignity, in mobocracy, the price of your
dignity is only the vote you make to take another's dignity away.
Kant was anti-democracy in the sense of mobocracy, or as he
called it, a "despotism of the people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory
Kant (1795) opposed direct democracy since it is "necessarily
despotism, as it establishes an executive power contrary to the
general will; all being able to decide against one whose opinion
may differ, the will of all is therefore not that of all: which is
contradictory and opposite to liberty." Instead, Kant favors a
constitutional republic where individual liberty is protected from
the will of the majority.
Thats the trouble with Kantians, they ignore the sensory evidence.
Or were you for the first time in your life trying out epsitemology
Mal?
Michae Gordge
Since Immanuel Kant was the first to come up with a nebular
hypothesis of the earth's solar system, I hardly think he was
ignoring the sensory evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
26 Dec 2007 11:31:15 PM |
|
|
On Dec 26, 10:50=A0am, wrote:
Kant was anti-democracy in the sense of mobocracy, or as he
called it, a "despotism of the people."
Shrug, wow, there's plenty of religionist mystics who reject
parasitical socialism too.
Sometimes some people can accidentally get things right.
Was I meant to be impressed by one idea of an idiot who rejects "non-
contradictory identification of sense perceptions" as the only means
to all of man's knowledge?
You want me to be impressed by an idiot who arrogantly renders man's
eyes ears nose hands and skin as nothing but ornaments and
decorations?
wikipiffle ignored.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
27 Dec 2007 06:09:17 AM |
|
|
On Dec 26, 10:31 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Dec 26, 10:50 am, wrote:
Kant was anti-democracy in the sense of mobocracy, or as he
called it, a "despotism of the people."
Shrug, wow, there's plenty of religionist mystics who reject
parasitical socialism too.
Sometimes some people can accidentally get things right.
Was I meant to be impressed by one idea of an idiot who rejects "non-
contradictory identification of sense perceptions" as the only means
to all of man's knowledge?
There was no theory of [insert sheep baaa'ing sounds] to reject.
You are claiming that Kant rejected some blather that wasn't
arbitrarily fantasized about for another 150-200 years.
You want me to be impressed by an idiot who arrogantly renders man's
eyes ears nose hands and skin as nothing but ornaments and
decorations?
No, because I know you are already impressed by a cradle robber
who wrote fantasy novels and bad philosophy and liked to
***** youngsters.
wikipiffle ignored.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
24 Dec 2007 04:48:20 PM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 5:58=A0am, wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#The_first_formulation
In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant also posited the
"counter-utilitarian idea that there is a difference between
preferences and values and that considerations of individual rights
temper calculations of aggregate utility", a concept that is an axiom
in economics:
=A0 =A0 "Everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price
can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other
hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no
equivalent, has a dignity. But that which constitutes the condition
under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have mere
relative worth, i.e., price, but an intrinsic worth, i.e., a
dignity." (p. 53)
A theory based upon 100% absolute utterly subjective Kantian piffle in
other words Mal?
A case of yet again of having to guess the subjective meaning of the
concepts and symbols Kant chooses in desribing another concept.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
24 Dec 2007 07:46:04 PM |
|
|
On Dec 24, 3:48 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Dec 25, 5:58 am, wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#The_first_formulation
In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant also posited the
"counter-utilitarian idea that there is a difference between
preferences and values and that considerations of individual rights
temper calculations of aggregate utility", a concept that is an axiom
in economics:
"Everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price
can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other
hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no
equivalent, has a dignity. But that which constitutes the condition
under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have mere
relative worth, i.e., price, but an intrinsic worth, i.e., a
dignity." (p. 53)
A theory based upon 100% absolute utterly subjective Kantian piffle in
other words Mal?
A case of yet again of having to guess the subjective meaning of the
concepts and symbols Kant chooses in desribing another concept.
Michael Gordge
You are conflating "subjective" and e-vil "subjectivism," but it's not
your fault because none of your Objectivist propaganda bothers
to tell you the difference or generally to teach anything
philosophical.
The subjective meaning of anything comes to nothing more than the
feelings it produces. Since I assume even you have feelings, your
personal experience is rife with subjectivity just the same as
everybody else.
But nobody is saying that the existence of something is dependent
upon subjective experience:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism
You are battling straw-dogs hundreds of years dead brought up by
Ayn Rand as ghosts and goblins to scare the weak-minded among
her followers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
25 Dec 2007 05:51:00 AM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 10:46=A0am, wrote:
You are conflating "subjective" and e-vil "subjectivism,"
Hardly, you're inventing and pretending that subjective means anything
other than, "the whimmed, wished, hoped, feared, dreamed, imagined"
The subjective meaning of anything comes to nothing more than the
feelings it produces.
So I can regard that as yet further meaningless subjective piffle?
Since I assume even you have feelings,
You are required to believe that feelings are without cause, they're
not.
your
personal experience is rife with subjectivity just the same as
everybody else.
My personal experiences are "triggered" by something existing outside
of my mind, Mal, and so dare yours, but you believe you can identify
yours before you have them, you render your eyes ears nose (your
senses) as meaningless ornaments, weird eh?
But thats only because you place your state of mind, called
consciousness, ahead of that which gives consciousness its identity,
existence.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
25 Dec 2007 10:22:16 AM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 4:51 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Dec 25, 10:46 am, wrote:
You are conflating "subjective" and e-vil "subjectivism,"
Hardly, you're inventing and pretending that subjective means anything
other than, "the whimmed, wished, hoped, feared, dreamed, imagined"
Then I guess all these websites are inventing and pretending the same
thing.
Now go and email all the authors of these webpages and tell them they
are
only inventing and pretending these definitions of 'subjective.'
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=subjective
(adj) subjective (taking place within the mind and modified by
individual bias) "a subjective judgment"
(adj) immanent, subjective (of a mental act performed entirely within
the mind) "a cognition is an immanent act of mind"
http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/healthsci/vocab.html
Subjective - Affected by or reflective of the ideas or feelings of a
person or group. Giving only partial coverage of an issue. Not
objective.
http://library.otterbein.edu/tutorial/iglossary.htm
Subjective: influenced by personal opinion.
http://www.willdurant.com/glossary.htm
Subjective, existing only in the perceiving mind; as existing in
thought; in Spinoza, as the object of thought.
http://www.oneontacsd.org/hs/murphy/terms.htm
subjective: Based on personal feeling or interpretation; not
objective.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/teaching_backgrounders/media_literacy/assessment_terms.cfm
Subjective: A subjective assessment is one that is based on criteria
that exist only or principally in the assessor. Two subjective
assessors assessing the same item might differ widely in their
assessment.
http://www.smallstocks.com.au/glossary.php?alpha=S
Subjective
The part of analysis that relies on the judgement and skill of the
analyst.
http://www.ffotogallery.org/th-edu/glossary.htm
Subjective: as opposed to objective, full of personal emotions and
feelings.
http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514259378/html/g240.html
Subjective: dependent on personal taste or views, etc.
http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/ahist/arthist111/glossary/index.htm
subjective: Modified or affected by personal views, experience, or
background.
The subjective meaning of anything comes to nothing more than the
feelings it produces.
So I can regard that as yet further meaningless subjective piffle?
Since I assume even you have feelings,
You are required to believe that feelings are without cause, they're
not.
your
personal experience is rife with subjectivity just the same as
everybody else.
My personal experiences are "triggered" by something existing outside
of my mind, Mal, and so dare yours, but you believe you can identify
yours before you have them, you render your eyes ears nose (your
senses) as meaningless ornaments, weird eh?
"For how should our faculty of knowledge be awakened into action
did not objects affecting our senses partly of themselves produce
representations..."
Keep repeating the same old Objectivist mantra and that will be my
response.
But thats only because you place your state of mind, called
consciousness, ahead of that which gives consciousness its identity,
existence.
?????????????????????????????????????
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
25 Dec 2007 05:09:48 PM |
|
|
On Dec 26, 1:22=A0am, wrote:
On Dec 25, 4:51 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Dec 25, 10:46 am, wrote:
You are conflating "subjective" and e-vil "subjectivism,"
Hardly, you're inventing and pretending that subjective means anything
other than, "the whimmed, wished, hoped, feared, dreamed, imagined"
Then I guess all these websites are inventing and pretending the same
thing.
Now go and email all the authors of these webpages and tell them they
are
only inventing and pretending these definitions of 'subjective.'
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=3Dsubjective
(adj) subjective (taking place within the mind and modified by
individual bias) "a subjective judgment"
(adj) immanent, subjective (of a mental act performed entirely within
the mind) "a cognition is an immanent act of mind"
http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/healthsci/vocab.html
Subjective - Affected by or reflective of the ideas or feelings of a
person or group. Giving only partial coverage of an issue. Not
objective.
http://library.otterbein.edu/tutorial/iglossary.htm
Subjective: =A0influenced by personal opinion.
http://www.willdurant.com/glossary.htm
Subjective, existing only in the perceiving mind; as existing in
thought; in Spinoza, as the object of thought.
http://www.oneontacsd.org/hs/murphy/terms.htm
subjective: Based on personal feeling or interpretation; not
objective.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/teaching_...
Subjective: A subjective assessment is one that is based on criteria
that exist only or principally in the assessor. Two subjective
assessors assessing the same item might differ widely in their
assessment.
http://www.smallstocks.com.au/glossary.php?alpha=3DS
Subjective
The part of analysis that relies on the judgement and skill of the
analyst.
http://www.ffotogallery.org/th-edu/glossary.htm
Subjective: =A0as opposed to objective, full of personal emotions and
feelings.
http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514259378/html/g240.html
Subjective: =A0 dependent on personal taste or views, etc.
http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/ahist/arthist111/glossary/index.htm
subjective: Modified or affected by personal views, experience, or
background.
The subjective meaning of anything comes to nothing more than the
feelings it produces.
So I can regard that as yet further meaningless subjective piffle?
Since I assume even you have feelings,
You are required to believe that feelings are without cause, they're
not.
your
personal experience is rife with subjectivity just the same as
everybody else.
My personal experiences are "triggered" by something existing outside
of my mind, Mal, and so dare yours, but you believe you can identify
yours before you have them, you render your eyes ears nose (your
senses) as meaningless ornaments, weird eh?
"For how should our faculty of knowledge be awakened into action
did not objects affecting our senses partly of themselves produce
representations..."
Keep repeating the same old Objectivist mantra and that will be my
response.
But thats only because you place your state of mind, called
consciousness, ahead of that which gives consciousness its identity,
existence.
?????????????????????????????????????- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The average being:
"existing only in the perceiving mind"
What is that if not a whim, a wish and or the imagined? Mal?
Let me explain one more time Mal, the mind perceiving that which
exists no-where but inside the mind is, the retard chewing its hands
off to sustain its body, death eventuates.
The mind feeding the mind has resulted in jets being slammed into sky-
scrapers, the person fucking the little boys in church didn't use the
sensory evidence of the boy screaming to stop, he used an idea born in
his mind to keep going.
Subjective =3D born and remaining in the mind, NO LINK to the outside
world, no link to reality, YOUR definitions, READ THEM, ask your
lawyer.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
25 Dec 2007 07:42:26 PM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 4:09 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Dec 26, 1:22 am, wrote:
On Dec 25, 4:51 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Dec 25, 10:46 am, wrote:
You are conflating "subjective" and e-vil "subjectivism,"
Hardly, you're inventing and pretending that subjective means anything
other than, "the whimmed, wished, hoped, feared, dreamed, imagined"
Then I guess all these websites are inventing and pretending the same
thing.
Now go and email all the authors of these webpages and tell them they
are
only inventing and pretending these definitions of 'subjective.'
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=subjective
(adj) subjective (taking place within the mind and modified by
individual bias) "a subjective judgment"
(adj) immanent, subjective (of a mental act performed entirely within
the mind) "a cognition is an immanent act of mind"
http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/healthsci/vocab.html
Subjective - Affected by or reflective of the ideas or feelings of a
person or group. Giving only partial coverage of an issue. Not
objective.
http://library.otterbein.edu/tutorial/iglossary.htm
Subjective: influenced by personal opinion.
http://www.willdurant.com/glossary.htm
Subjective, existing only in the perceiving mind; as existing in
thought; in Spinoza, as the object of thought.
http://www.oneontacsd.org/hs/murphy/terms.htm
subjective: Based on personal feeling or interpretation; not
objective.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/teaching_...
Subjective: A subjective assessment is one that is based on criteria
that exist only or principally in the assessor. Two subjective
assessors assessing the same item might differ widely in their
assessment.
http://www.smallstocks.com.au/glossary.php?alpha=S
Subjective
The part of analysis that relies on the judgement and skill of the
analyst.
http://www.ffotogallery.org/th-edu/glossary.htm
Subjective: as opposed to objective, full of personal emotions and
feelings.
http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514259378/html/g240.html
Subjective: dependent on personal taste or views, etc.
http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/ahist/arthist111/glossary/index.htm
subjective: Modified or affected by personal views, experience, or
background.
The subjective meaning of anything comes to nothing more than the
feelings it produces.
So I can regard that as yet further meaningless subjective piffle?
Since I assume even you have feelings,
You are required to believe that feelings are without cause, they're
not.
your
personal experience is rife with subjectivity just the same as
everybody else.
My personal experiences are "triggered" by something existing outside
of my mind, Mal, and so dare yours, but you believe you can identify
yours before you have them, you render your eyes ears nose (your
senses) as meaningless ornaments, weird eh?
"For how should our faculty of knowledge be awakened into action
did not objects affecting our senses partly of themselves produce
representations..."
Keep repeating the same old Objectivist mantra and that will be my
response.
But thats only because you place your state of mind, called
consciousness, ahead of that which gives consciousness its identity,
existence.
?????????????????????????????????????- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The average being:
"existing only in the perceiving mind"
What is that if not a whim, a wish and or the imagined? Mal?
It could be any or all of those things, and those things are indeed
subjective. So what's your point? The subjective is, by this
definition, that which exists only in the perceiving mind, which
at the moment is perceiving its own subjective content. Nobody
said this perceiving subject was placing ontological importance
on this subjective content or that this perceiving mind was
perceiving ONLY a subjective content, unless of course it was
in a dream state and asleep.
Let me explain one more time Mal, the mind perceiving that which
exists no-where but inside the mind is, the retard chewing its hands
off to sustain its body, death eventuates.
That's just terrible. Unfortunately for you, there is nothing wrong
with perceiving your own mind's subjective content, whether that
would be a wish, a memory, a dream, etc. The problem would
involve placing ontological importance on the subjective, and
Kant is not guilty of this. He was no representationalist but a
direct realist.
For example:
"For how should our faculty of knowledge be awakened into action
did not OBJECTS AFFECTING OUR SENSES partly of themselves
produce representations..."
Objects affect our senses and Kant was a direct realist.
Subjective = born and remaining in the mind, NO LINK to the outside
world, no link to reality, YOUR definitions, READ THEM, ask your
lawyer.
You still don't know the difference between "subjective" and
"subjectivism,"
so much for your belief in definitions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
25 Dec 2007 08:16:47 PM |
|
|
On Dec 26, 10:42=A0am, wrote:
For example:
"For how should our faculty of knowledge
There is no such thing as a "faculty of knowledge" when trying to
established the beginning of knowledge, dont be silly.
You still don't know the difference between "subjective" and
"subjectivism,"
so much for your belief in definitions.
ive and ivism doesn't change anything about the meaning of subject--
ive, dont be silly Mal.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
25 Dec 2007 10:49:19 PM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 7:16 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Dec 26, 10:42 am, wrote:
For example:
"For how should our faculty of knowledge
There is no such thing as a "faculty of knowledge" when trying to
established the beginning of knowledge, dont be silly.
I take it from your grammar that you're about 14 years old, correct?
You still don't know the difference between "subjective" and
"subjectivism,"
so much for your belief in definitions.
ive and ivism doesn't change anything about the meaning of subject--
ive, dont be silly Mal.
?????????????????/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
25 Dec 2007 07:02:01 PM |
|
|
On Dec 26, 1:22=A0am, wrote:
But thats only because you place your state of mind, called
consciousness, ahead of that which gives consciousness its identity,
existence.
?????????????????????????????????????
One question mark would have done Mal.
Subjective, according to all of those dictionary definitions you gave,
means a state of mind dependent upon itself.
You, and no thanks to Kant, reckon that consciousness can be used as
the "beginning of man's knowledge", i.e. knowledge beginning by the
mind feeding itself.
e.g. the beginning of his knowledge of time, according to Kant, man
has without ANY OBJECT awakening his senses, now that ONLY leaves his
mind to begin his knowledge of time Mal, now that IS subjective, its
the mind feeding it itself, its the retard chewing its hands off to
survive, Mal.
THAT is what I mean by Kantians placing their state of consciousness
AHEAD of that which it is conscious of, ahead of that which gives
consciosness its identity, existence, i.e. you are feeding your mind
your mind.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
25 Dec 2007 07:45:07 PM |
|
|
On Dec 25, 6:02 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Dec 26, 1:22 am, wrote:
But thats only because you place your state of mind, called
consciousness, ahead of that which gives consciousness its identity,
existence.
?????????????????????????????????????
One question mark would have done Mal.
Subjective, according to all of those dictionary definitions you gave,
means a state of mind dependent upon itself.
You haven't shown this forum how all those definitions mean "a state
of
mind dependent upon itself." Why do you expect anybody apart from
your subjective self to believe your base assertions?
You, and no thanks to Kant, reckon that consciousness can be used as
the "beginning of man's knowledge", i.e. knowledge beginning by the
mind feeding itself.
"For how should our faculty of knowledge be awakened into action
did not objects affecting our senses partly of themselves produce
representations..."
This statement assumes a conscious mind with the capacity for
knowledge awaiting the first impressions of objects from the senses.
Nowhere does it state in that passage or in the entire Critique of
Pure Reason that consciousness comes first.
<snip drivel>
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
26 Dec 2007 02:04:19 AM |
|
|
On Dec 26, 10:45=A0am, wrote:
You haven't shown this forum how all those definitions mean "a state
of
mind dependent upon itself."
You did that for me, but anyway, its rather silly a subjectivist such
as yourself Mal, who regards all of man's knowledhe being a result of
being subjective, demanding that I provide you with proof of anything,
let alone something which you could NEVER possible agree with without
contradicting yourself, and even you know how silly that would be.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kantian basis for economic theory |
26 Dec 2007 09:07:10 PM |
|
|
On Dec 26, 1:04 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Dec 26, 10:45 am, wrote:
You haven't shown this forum how all those definitions mean "a state
of
mind dependent upon itself."
You did that for me, but anyway, its rather silly a subjectivist such
as yourself Mal, who regards all of man's knowledhe being a result of
being subjective, demanding that I provide you with proof of anything,
let alone something which you could NEVER possible agree with without
contradicting yourself, and even you know how silly that would be.
Michael Gordge
Is that one of your wives I hear baaa'ing in the background of this
post?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
