Kant says that space is a priori and a necessary condition for the
representation of objects.
What does Kant say about colour? Colour is not an intuition but is it
a priori?

On Aug 19, 5:58 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

Thats only because in his desperate and stupid attempts to keep his
dopey and evil fcuking nightmare alive, he needed objects to be able
to represent themselves as objects, when in reality they dont have to
do anything of the sort, why? because they just are as they are, they
exist as they exist, no matter what Kant wants and needs them to exist
as, to keep his evil mind-fucking nightmate alive. Objects exist as
matter and it is that matter which man must be identify by man,
objects do not exist as representations, thats just stupid invented
arbitrary Kantian piffle, the stuff the mind of reason is required to
reject.

"Representation" is a man made concept, which Kant needs to give to
entities of sensory existence (such as space) as a part of their
identity.

"Michael Gordge" xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1187474162.231805.267230@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 19, 7:15 am, "Joe Smith" earthlink.net> wrote:

Didn't know a dictionary was a higher authority, but, I guess there's some
idiot who'll worship anything. And, as for a citation.

Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Section..Skepticism with regard to
reason).

A Treatise of Human Nature.

Enquiry Concerning the principals of morals.

.all by David Hume. Simplified for a simpleton, Hume is a skeptic, who
gives very complex reasoning for the denunciation of certainty of knowledge.
How can you 'know' there is a god when you don't 'know ' there is a you?
Hence, Kant must advance arbitrary acceptance.

And, just by the by.

Calling for a citation isn't defending your 'idea'.

Nor is the need for excess profanity. Though it does a good job of showing
your 7th grade education, go 'wank off' doesn't further an idea, or show
your lack of ignorance, as you accused me. May hap you need more than just
a dictionary. Try reasonable discussion, as the forum is designed for. Or,
go find a nice playground where you can compare your new nasty words with
those of all the other little boys.

On Aug 19, 7:41 am, "Joe Smith" earthlink.net> wrote:

"Know" is a symbol replacing a sentence, give us that sentence.

"God" is a symbol replacing a sentence, give us that senstence.

"You" is a symbol replacing a sentence, give us that sentence.

You know, I came into this thread to discuss the subject, with my
answer to the question asked in the original thread and with my
explanations and substaniating my ideas.

YOU, in trypical cowardly gutless Kantian wanker's fashion, pretending
to be something you most certainly are not, fucking clever, hiding
behind a one of the most wanky fucking stage names ever seen, you
rabbit on about nothing, with not one mention of the original subject
of the thead and you then expect to be taken seriously and treated
with respect? christolmighty what a tosser.

On Aug 18, 11:15 pm, "Joe Smith" earthlink.net> wrote:

On Aug 18, 1:58 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

JJ is that you in Wales brother?

If we remove from our empirical concept of a body, one by one, every
feature in it which is [merely] empirical, the colour, the hardness or
softness, the weight, even the impenetrability, there still remains...

On Aug 19, 8:31 am, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:

Let's itemize.

1st. You accuse me of not being on topic. At what point did you say yes,
or no, to the original question, rather than ranting about a philosophy you
can quote poorly and understand worse?

2. You ask for citations, I gave them to you. Give me your citation that My
Name isn't Joe Smith. Then I can give legal proof you're a nimrod.

3. Gutless?...I give valid arguments based on citable documents. I'll admit
I didn't give a source first time. Then again who doesn't know Hume's
relation to Kant? It's not required by any form to quote common knowledge.
It's assumed you have it already. Not my fault you skipped Hume whilst
learning to rave on about the holes in Kant's arguments (which, btw, you
understand how, if you don't understand the work it is based on?!?)

4. Don't tell someone not to attack you, when you curse at and insult
everything on the board and net, including a person's name. Who is chazz
anyway?

5. As for telling you how to 'attack the enemy of mankind' WTF?...Don't
remember typing that phrase?

6. And Finally.

Look here sophist dumbass. You ask for a citation, I give it to you. Stop
asking for more citation. The definitions of the words Know, God, and You
are irrelevant to any post in this thread, much...