|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Scott HScott H Date: Sep 9, 2007 20:08
Everyone is free to debate about this, but I won't discuss it with
Michael Gordge if he chooses to use personal attacks.
Kant gives us an example in an attempt to illustrate how we cannot
know things in themselves.
>From Critique of Pure Reason (A 48/B 65):
"Take the proposition that three straight lines permit construction of
a figure, and try ... to derive it from these mere concepts ... Now
suppose that there did not lie within you a power to intuit a...
|
| Show full article (1.47Kb) |
|
| | 37 Comments |
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: Sep 9, 2007 20:34
> Everyone is free to debate about this, but I won't discuss it with
> Michael Gordge if he chooses to use personal attacks.
>
> Kant gives us an example in an attempt to illustrate how we cannot
> know things in themselves.
>
>>From Critique of Pure Reason (A 48/B 65):
>
> "Take the proposition that three straight lines permit construction of
> a figure, and try ... to derive it from these mere concepts ... Now
> suppose that there did not lie within you a power to intuit a
> priori ... and that the object (the triangle) were something in
> itself ... If that were so, how could you say that what necessarily
> lies in [or belongs to] your subjective conditions for constructing a
> triangle must also belong necessarily to the triangle itself? For,
> after all, you could not add to your concepts (of three lines)
> anything new (the figure) that would therefore have to be met with
> necessarily in the object, since this object would be given prior to ...
|
| Show full article (2.66Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Date: Sep 9, 2007 20:42
On Sep 9, 8:08 pm, Scott H yahoo.com> wrote:> Everyone is free to debate about this, but I won't discuss it with
> Michael Gordge if he chooses to use personal attacks.
>
> Kant gives us an example in an attempt to illustrate how we cannot
> know things in themselves.
>
>>From Critique of Pure Reason (A 48/B 65):
>
> "Take the proposition that three straight lines permit construction of
> a figure, and try ... to derive it from these mere concepts ... Now
> suppose that there did not lie within you a power to intuit a
> priori ... and that the object (the triangle) were something in
> itself ... If that were so, how could you say that what necessarily
> lies in [or belongs to] your subjective conditions for constructing a
> triangle must also belong necessarily to the triangle itself? For,
> after all, you could not add to your concepts (of three lines)
> anything new (the figure) that would therefore have to be met with
> necessarily in the object, since this object would be given prior to
> your cognition rather than through it. Hence you could not ...
|
| Show full article (3.42Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Sep 9, 2007 20:55
> On Sep 9, 8:08 pm, Scott H yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> Everyone is free to debate about this, but I won't discuss it with
>> Michael Gordge if he chooses to use personal attacks.
>
>> Kant gives us an example in an attempt to illustrate how we cannot
>> know things in themselves.
>
>>>From Critique of Pure Reason (A 48/B 65):
>
>> "Take the proposition that three straight lines permit construction of
>> a figure, and try ... to derive it from these mere concepts ... Now
>> suppose that there did not lie within you a power to intuit a
>> priori ... and that the object (the triangle) were something in
>> itself ... If that were so, how could you say that what necessarily ...
|
| Show full article (5.15Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Sep 9, 2007 21:32
On Sep 9, 8:55 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:>> On Sep 9, 8:08 pm, Scott H yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>> Everyone is free to debate about this, but I won't discuss it with
>>> Michael Gordge if he chooses to use personal attacks.
>
>>> Kant gives us an example in an attempt to illustrate how we cannot
>>> know things in themselves.
>
>>>>From Critique of Pure Reason (A 48/B 65):
>
>>> "Take the proposition that three straight lines permit construction of
>>> a figure, and try ... to derive it from these mere concepts ... Now
>>> suppose that there did not lie within you a power to intuit a
>>> priori ... and that the object (the triangle) were something in
>>> itself ... If that were so, how could you say that what necessarily ...
|
| Show full article (5.90Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Sep 10, 2007 01:15
On Sep 10, 4:08 am, Scott H yahoo.com> wrote:> Everyone is free to debate about this, but I won't discuss it with
> Michael Gordge if he chooses to use personal attacks.
>
> Kant gives us an example in an attempt to illustrate how we cannot
> know things in themselves.
>
>>From Critique of Pure Reason (A 48/B 65):
>
> "Take the proposition that three straight lines permit construction of
> a figure, and try ... to derive it from these mere concepts ... Now
> suppose that there did not lie within you a power to intuit a
> priori ... and that the object (the triangle) were something in
> itself ... If that were so, how could you say that what necessarily
> lies in [or belongs to] your subjective conditions for constructing a
> triangle must also belong necessarily to the triangle itself? For,
> after all, you could not add to your concepts (of three lines)
> anything new (the figure) that would therefore have to be met with
> necessarily in the object, since this object would be given prior to
> your cognition rather than through it. Hence you could not ...
|
| Show full article (1.77Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Sep 10, 2007 01:32
On Sep 10, 12:08 pm, Scott H yahoo.com> wrote:> Everyone is free to debate about this, but I won't discuss it with
> Michael Gordge if he chooses to use personal attacks.
I dont Scott, I never have Scott, I never would Scott, I identify
things as they exist e.g. I would NEVER identify someone a fucking
useless, queer, knuckle-dragging commie Castro arse kissing cunt,
unless all of the evidence points to them being exactly that, ask
chazzzzzz if you dont believe me.
I would never get so desperate to call someone a sheep fucker,
especially I would never do it in public hiding behind an unethical
fucking cowardly stage name, I have never and I would never wish a
poster's wife cancer, I have never and I would never threaten to smash
someone's head in, I have never and I would never write anything at a
public forum about anyone unless the evidence points to it, nor do I
without providing my name.
I treat nice people nicely and I do not owe civility to my enemy, nor
to horrid human scum e.g. socialists, commies, fascists, so if the cap
fits Scottt then wear it and go fuck yourself.
|
| Show full article (2.09Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Sep 10, 2007 02:12
On Sep 10, 5:15 pm, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:
> That you have cognition means that all objects are perceived as
> concepts.
What Chazz is saying there is, "the mind first", i.e. form the
concepts from thin air (whim-worshipping) and apply them any old how,
in any odd way to anything that takes your fancy.
Therefore man remains blind because he has eyes, deaf because he has
ears, cant smell because he has a nose, cant feel because he skin,
cant touch because he has hands.
Chazzz denies the use of is perceptions, as gained via his eyes ears
nose feel touch, and places his concscious mind ahead of that which
defines its conscious state, existence.
Michael Gordge
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: D HD H Date: Sep 10, 2007 08:58
Scott H wrote:
>First of all, I consider three lines to be objects,
> not concepts.
But what is there to engage in such existential judgements outside of
minds? Would Jesus be "out-there" being cognitive of the ontological
realm in a human manner if all humans were destroyed? Or is the cosmos
itself an anthropomorphic computer abstracting features from the whole
and classifying them as objects and actions? Is this "God's Eye view"
observing or conceiving the Earth from all possible POVs or only
certain POVs (as a globe hanging in space, a flat circular landscape,
a mass of atoms, a member of the solar system and galaxy, etc)?
Consciousness involves the categorization of information. "Regions"
would not magically assert "what they are" even in the phenomenal
background presented to the intentionality of the subject. There are...
|
| Show full article (1.45Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Sep 10, 2007 11:32
On Sep 10, 10:12 am, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:> On Sep 10, 5:15 pm, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> That you have cognition means that all objects are perceived as
>> concepts.
>
> What Chazz is saying there is, "the mind first", i.e. form the
> concepts from thin air (whim-worshipping) and apply them any old how,
> in any odd way to anything that takes your fancy.
No, Chazzzz is not sayinf that you complete fuck-wit.
|
| Show full article (0.84Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
