> On Aug 19, 8:31 am, chazwin
yahoo.com> wrote:>> On Aug 18, 11:15 pm, "Joe Smith"
earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> "Michael Gordge"
xtra.co.nz> wrote in message>>
>>
>>>> On Aug 19, 5:58 am, John Jones
aol.com> wrote:>>>>> Kant says that space is a priori and a necessary condition for the
>>>>> representation of objects.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> When in reality, "representation" is not an identity of anything but
>>>> a
>>>> man made concept, its a trigger word, its a symbol used to ignite
>>>> inside your mind a link existing between ideas and sensory evidence
>>>> and other concepts, its NOT the sensory evidence.
>>
>>>> "First Confuse Their Vocabulary" reckoned either Marx or Lenin as
>>>> they
>>>> planned to conquer nations and civilizations, where do you think they
>>>> got the idea from?
>>
>>>>> What does Kant say about colour? Colour is not an intuition but is
>>>>> it
>>>>> a priori?
>>
>>>> Intuition is a symbol replacing a sentence, give us that sentence.
>>
>>>> Water also is something that man cant have any other knowledge
>>>> without, but notice how Kant doesn't include that as an a priori of
>>>> knowledge?
>>
>>>> Why not" Because in the first paragraph of his Pure And Unadulterated
>>>> Destruction Of Reason Kant claims that "objects" are what are needed
>>>> to "awaken" man's mind for his knowledge, but Kant recognized that
>>>> water was an object, of some sort that could awaken man's senses.
>>
>>>> However Kant could not identify the "objects" required to awaken
>>>> man's
>>>> mind for the concepts of space and time, so he INVENTED a dopey idea
>>>> that man's knowledge of space and time must just arbitrarily be
>>>> accepted as object-less ideas / knowledge.
>>
>>>> Hence also where his stupid idea that all of man's knowledge is
>>>> gained
>>>> subject--ively because objects represent themselves and can never be
>>>> represented by man, which as I have mentioned, is a total and evil
>>>> bastardization of the concept represent designed to confuse the
>>>> vocabulary.
>>
>>>> Michael Gordge
>>
>>> Kant's 'dopey ideas' were 'invented' in response to the misunderstood
>>> work
>>> of a predecessor, Mr. Hume. Hume's work made it necessary for Kant to
>>> advance the concept of arbitrary acceptance. Go read. Try
>>> understanding
>>> the words. Use Dic-tion-ary.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Hahahahah -Gordge now has a pseudonym so that he can answer himself in
>> threads! Priceless!!!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> What a disgusting wishful fucking lying little tosser ewe are Tim.
>
>
> MG
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ha haa haa. Well Mr non-contradictory identification, if you open your eyes
a little you'll see that "Tim" is getting bigger day by day. That is, if you
count the number of responders to your illiterate posts who ever agree with
your *ideas*, you'll reach a grand total of zero! So nice try you fucking
sheep shagging dodgy little kiwi cunt, but it is you who has been judged,
not by one but by many, as the fucker here. You dodge and drop context like
no one's business, and then you have the gall to accuse others! You've been
spewing your shit for years, over and over and over, and you still don't
have a fucking clue about what it is you think you're criticizing; because
you're either too lazy or too fucking stupid to bother reading the material.
If you had half a fucking brain you could easily figure out who's who here;
but as I recall you couldn't even figure out how to use google groups when
they changed format. Why? You're either too fucking lazy or too fucking
stupid.
You're a one trick pony, rehashing the half-baked ideas of your cunt hero;
get a life you fucking over used deuce-bag.
