>> "Kant, Immanuel
>> Genus: Philosopher
>> Differentia: Believed that reality as we see it is distorted, and
>> the true reality is unknowable"
>>
>> Randroid hypocrisy.
>>
>> That definition itself is a distortion.
>
> Typically Kantian, you make an accusation and fail to back it up or to
> substaniate your own position.
>
> Why didn't you correct it and quote what Kant does say on the subject
> of man not being able to know things in themselves as they exist in
> actual reality?
Why didn't your boyfriends cite the passage Kant where Kant says "Believed
that reality as we see it is distorted, and
the true reality is unknowable."
>
> Are you saying Kant claims that man CAN know things as they are, with
> absolute 100%% certainty? Where does he say that?
>
> Are you saying Kant never uses or even implies *things being
> unknowable*?
>
> Perhaps you could point us in the direction of a web site where Kant
> explains the absolute beginning of his philosophy with as much clarity
> as Rand does with Objectivism.
>
> From
>
>
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs
>
> "Existence exists--and the act of grasping that statement implies two
> corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that
> one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty
> of perceiving that which exists."
>
>
> Michael Gordge
>
