|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Dec 25, 2007 22:26
> http://books.google.com/books?id=vOS2RPxTSxIC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=kant+...http://snurl...
>
> At this link to page 9 of the book Kant on Representation and
> Objectivity,
> A. B. Dickerson states that there have been attempts to prove that
> Immanuel
> Kant was as direct realist, that is, that we are aware of more than
> just our
> inner states. I myself have read one of the books in that list,
> namely, Possible
> Experience by Arthur Collins.
>
> Notice that Dickerson has bothered to study the subject before
> deciding
> to respond about, unlike some usenet posters, you know who you are.
>
> To wit, Dickerson wrote: "The fundamental problem with this direct
>
> realist ...
|
| Show full article (5.20Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Dec 26, 2007 01:42
>Kant persistently talks of representations as being themselves the
> objects of our mental acts.
Obviously by "ours" Kant means his ilk only, so tell us Mal of Kant's
ilk,
Can ewe give an example of, even one will do, of "representations as
themselves the objects of your mental acts"
MG
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: malenoidmalenoid Date: Dec 26, 2007 11:11
On Dec 26, 2:42 am, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:>>Kant persistently talks of representations as being themselves the
>> objects of our mental acts.
>
> Obviously by "ours" Kant means his ilk only, so tell us Mal of Kant's
> ilk,
>
> Can ewe give an example of, even one will do, of "representations as
> themselves the objects of your mental acts"
>
> MG
I don't recognize the word "ewe" in this context. Perhaps you've
been shagging so many sheep lately that now everything looks
like a sheep.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Dec 26, 2007 13:05
> http://books.google.com/books?id=vOS2RPxTSxIC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=kant+...http://snurl...
>
> At this link to page 9 of the book Kant on Representation and
> Objectivity,
> A. B. Dickerson states that there have been attempts to prove that
> Immanuel
> Kant was as direct realist, that is, that we are aware of more than
> just our
> inner states. I myself have read one of the books in that list,
> namely, Possible
> Experience by Arthur Collins.
>
> Notice that Dickerson has bothered to study the subject before
> deciding
> to respond about, unlike some usenet posters, you know who you are.
>
> To wit, Dickerson wrote: "The fundamental problem with this direct
>
> realist ...
|
| Show full article (3.26Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Dec 26, 2007 13:44
> On Dec 26, 2:42 am, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Kant persistently talks of representations as being themselves the
>>> objects of our mental acts.
>
>> Obviously by "ours" Kant means his ilk only, so tell us Mal of Kant's
>> ilk,
>
>> Can ewe give an example of, even one will do, of "representations as
>> themselves the objects of your mental acts"
>
>> MG
>
> I don't recognize the word "ewe" in this context. Perhaps you've
> been shagging so many sheep lately that now everything looks
> like a sheep.
|
| Show full article (0.90Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Dec 26, 2007 18:53
On Dec 27, 6:05 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
> The ontological importance of the thing in itself would be, according
> to Allison, a limiting principle or guard against the excesses of
> reason to think there is a non-sensible object.
Ideas exist as things to be reasoned.
e.g. Lots of people make silly arbitrary claims (read Kant) and
statements and offer nothing in sensory reality to substaniate their
claims, therefore it remains an idea based upon an idea.
Whether or not that idea corresponds to reality, the ONLY thing that
matters, IS then a task of the reasoning mind.
The reasoning mind would make contradiction identification and
elimination its primary focus, why? Because there are no
contradictions in reality because what is real is real and what is
real is not imagined.
Michael Gordge
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: malenoidmalenoid Date: Dec 26, 2007 19:07
On Dec 26, 2:44 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:> On Dec 27, 4:11 am, malen...@ hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> >> On Dec 26, 2:42 am, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:>
>
>>>>Kant persistently talks of representations as being themselves the
>>>> objects of our mental acts.
>
>>> Obviously by "ours" Kant means his ilk only, so tell us Mal of Kant's
>>> ilk,
>
>>> Can ewe give an example of, even one will do, of "representations as
>>> themselves the objects of your mental acts"
>
>>> MG
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.06Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Dec 26, 2007 19:18
> It means the last time I fucked your mother.
What is left of her is still sitting in an urn, its too soon.
But what ewe meant to say is you're finding it impossible to explain
what is meant in reality by *10 minutes ago*.
Funny that, Kantians claim they were born with knowledge of time, or
to be more specific, Kant claims their knowledge of time is
arbitrary / unreasoned, just happens, and yet they cant even tell us
or explain what little knowledge of time they actually have.
Ewe're letting your flock down Mal, they're waiting for a ewe like ewe
to lead them.
Michael Gordge
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Dec 26, 2007 19:51
On Dec 26, 1:42 am, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:>>Kant persistently talks of representations as being themselves the
>> objects of our mental acts.
>
> Obviously by "ours" Kant means his ilk only, so tell us Mal of Kant's
> ilk,
>
> Can ewe give an example of, even one will do, of "representations as
> themselves the objects of your mental acts"
>
> MG
OBJECT [A46/B63] Kant distinguishes empirical from transcendental
objects, and he also speaks of the self as an object. On the one hand,
appearances are empirical objects. The question of whether an
appearance...
|
| Show full article (3.52Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
