|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: knucmoknucmo Date: Jan 9, 2007 10:53
Kant - why knucmo and i really agree (but argue because he is wrong)
I find it difficult to believe than I am in agreement with such an
insolent person who appear to be refusing to understand my position.
Let me
clear it up right now that I do not think:
1) Everything Kant said was right
2) As a corollary of this, I do not believe that Kant's ethical theory
was right, though it had some interesting features to it.
But, I notice you use this to attack my whole system anyway, making
claims about monovalence and the like, despite my never once
mentioning, let alone, applauding the Categorical Imperative. In fact,...
|
| Show full article (12.39Kb) |
|
| | 146 Comments |
|
|
Author: knucmoknucmo Date: Jan 11, 2007 15:55
knucmo wrote:
>> Do you see the distinction I (and Kant!) am making?
Don't lecture me on a distinction I fully understand. The evidence
that you don't understand is plain for all to see: You think the
logical opposite of a synthetic a priori proposition is impossible.
Here's a definition that you should be able to understand:
An analytic judgment is something like: All black cats are black.
A synthetic judgment is something like: My tie is green.
Simple stuff, really simple stuff with no recourse to Google.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: galathaeagalathaea Date: Jan 11, 2007 23:07
Publius wrote:
> "galathaea" gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168493074.862410.203640@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hmmm. Let me see if I can annoy you both.
Tertium datur!
>> I am claiming that Kant believes a priori knowledge is not contingent.
>> I have been quoting to support this position.
>
> Synthetic a priori knowledge is not contingent. It is true in all possible
> worlds *which we can conceive*. But it is wise to avoid the term "absolute."
> The term is ambiguous, and on some interpretations would be construed to
> refer to the noumenal realm, which (for Kant) is unknowable, or to all
> worlds whatsoever, including those which are inconceivable to us. Which of
> course is vacuous. Such truths are *synthetic* simply because their truth
> does not rest entirely upon the meanings of the terms involved. But they are
> *a priori* because we cannot conceive them being false.
>
> 1 point for you, Galathaea.
|
| Show full article (12.55Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: galathaeagalathaea Date: Jan 11, 2007 23:16
what is the criteria
by which one knows the a priori synthetic
from the a posteriori synthetic?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: galathaeagalathaea Date: Jan 11, 2007 23:38
knucmo wrote:
> galathaea wrote:
[...]
>> It is also my position that nothing else about his position was new.
>> This ascription to Kant that he originated the idea that our innate
>> perceptual categories shape or determine our experience is false,
>> and I claim it is based on cultural bias and ignorance of the history
>> of philosophy.
>
> You miss the point: Kant was probably the first to do it in a
> systematic method that allowed the sciences to progress on a seperate
> path. The mystics, given that science wasn't really around in those
> days, could not have seen this.
Using the term mysticism for buddhist or stoic logic illustrates the
cultural bias I was claiming perfectly. Thank you, Knucmo. I like
it when you play your part.
|
| Show full article (1.53Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Dianelos GeorgoudisDianelos Georgoudis Date: Jan 11, 2007 23:41
Publius wrote:
> "galathaea" gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168493074.862410.203640@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hmmm. Let me see if I can annoy you both.
>>> I am claiming that Kant believes a priori knowledge is not contingent.
>> I have been quoting to support this position.
>
> Synthetic a priori knowledge is not contingent. It is true in all possible
> worlds *which we can conceive*. But it is wise to avoid the term "absolute."
> The term is ambiguous, and on some interpretations would be construed to
> refer to the noumenal realm, which (for Kant) is unknowable, or to all
> worlds whatsoever, including those which are inconceivable to us. Which of
> course is vacuous. Such truths are *synthetic* simply because their truth
> does not rest entirely upon the meanings...
|
| Show full article (2.04Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: knucmoknucmo Date: Jan 12, 2007 04:31
galathaea wrote:
> what is the criteria
> by which one knows the a priori synthetic
> from the a posteriori synthetic?
Since you've but something sensible and breviloquent here I will
respond in kind:
Since Kant held the axioms of geometry to be synthetic, this alone
predicts the possibility of a Non-Euclidean geometry. Where Kant seems
to mix himself up is say that the axioms of geometry are known...
|
| Show full article (1.10Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: galathaeagalathaea Date: Jan 12, 2007 07:47
knucmo wrote:
> galathaea wrote:
[...]
>> That is my whole point. I keep stressing that these propositions he
>> is talking about he claims are A PRIORI synthetic. They are
>> synthetic in that they do not derive from logical deduction on
>> already established premises, but require the intuition of
>> experience, and they are A PRIORI in that he believes
>> they are absolute, universal, and necessary truths.
>
>> So when we discover (as with the geometry of our space, the logic of
>> our existents
>
> Despite logic being advanced since Kant's day, I don't think any
> logician thinks that the law of non-contradiction or the excluded
> middle are any less certain than Kant's day, as a matter of fact. Kant
> may very well have said, that we won't advance any further wrt. logic
> than we have done, but note that the advances in logic have in no way
> done away with the principles Kant said were certain.
[...] ...
|
| Show full article (2.32Kb) |
| 18 Comments |
|
|
Author: George DanceGeorge Dance Date: Jan 12, 2007 08:05
knucmo wrote:
> knucmo wrote:
>
>>> Do you see the distinction I (and Kant!) am making?
>
> Don't lecture me on a distinction I fully understand. The evidence
> that you don't understand is plain for all to see: You think the
> logical opposite of a synthetic a priori proposition is impossible.
>
And what do you think? So far, you've been trying to have it both
ways, one day saying things like:
"ANY synthetic a priori proposition can be denied without
contradiction.
The opposite of an ANALYTIC proposition implies logical impossibility.
The opposite of a synthetic proposition does not imply any logical
impossibility, and in fact, confirms the logical possibility"
and the next saying things like:
|
| Show full article (1.48Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: George DanceGeorge Dance Date: Jan 12, 2007 08:32
galathaea wrote:
> knucmo wrote:
>> galathaea wrote:
> [...]
>>> That is my whole point. I keep stressing that these propositions he
>>> is talking about he claims are A PRIORI synthetic. They are
>>> synthetic in that they do not derive from logical deduction on
>>> already established premises, but require the intuition of
>>> experience, and they are A PRIORI in that he believes
>>> they are absolute, universal, and necessary truths.
>>
>>> So when we discover (as with the geometry of our space, the logic of
>>> our existents
>>
>> Despite logic being advanced since Kant's day, I don't think any
>> logician thinks that the law of non-contradiction or the excluded
>> middle are any less certain than Kant's day, as a matter of fact. Kant
>> may very well have said, that we won't advance any further wrt. logic
>> than we have done, but note that the advances in logic have in no way
>> done away with the principles Kant said were certain. ...
|
| Show full article (3.90Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
