From Immanuel Kant's Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics, §43

"Idealism proper always has a mystical tendency, and can have
no other, but mine is solely designed for the purpose of
comprehending the possibility of our cognition a priori as to
objects of experience, which is a problem never hitherto solved
or even suggested. In this way all mystical idealism falls to the
ground, for (as may be seen already in Plato) it inferred from
our cognitions a priori (even from those of geometry) another
intuition different from that of the senses (namely, an
intellectual intuition), because it never occurred to any one
that the senses themselves might intuit a priori."

On 13 Jan, 04:57, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

False - a priori knowledge is justified independently of sense
experience. All that means is that a priori knowledge will be true
'come what may'.

False:

All x's are y
All y's are z
Therefore all x's are z.

Thats a deductive, a priori argument; no lack of reasoning here.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 04:13:28 -0800 (PST), knucmo
hotmail.com> wrote:

Googie can't even get the simplistic ideas of his goddess right, so
what did you expect with Kant?

On Jan 13, 9:13 pm, knucmo hotmail.com> wrote:

Thats what I said, Kant said a priori is knowledge man has totally
independent of his experiences.

"  All that means is that a priori knowledge will be true

How can something not originating from, and therefore not dependent
upon "sensory reality", be justified as "being true come what may"?

Oh thats right Kant's bridge builders have constructed bridges of
super highways, between justified and whimmed, between imagination and
reality, between truth and fiction where in reality an unbridgeable
chasm exists.

The Kantian bridges have a name. "The Bridges of Arbitration"

i.e. Nothing needs to be substantiated with sensory evidence, just
accepted on whim.

Michael Gordge

On Jan 14, 1:57 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 13, 9:13 pm, knucmo hotmail.com> wrote:

Via Kantian arbitrartion you mean.

One of the examples of "a priori knowledge" that Melonhead or you gave
me some time ago was:

1 + 6 = 7

I pointed out that math is the use of numbers and that in reality
numbers do not exist, that numbers exist not in reality but as a tool
of man to determine what and how things do exist in reality, that
numbers and math are a "means" to knowledge, a means to understanding
reality and NOT reality itself.

I explained that 1 + 1 = 2 meant NOTHING in reality unless and until
the number had a direct link to an entity/s in sensory reality.

THEREFORE to say that a priori was KNOWLEDGE, when knowledge is man's
understanding of reality was simply WRONG in FACT.

On 13 Jan, 21:37, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

You can't even spell out the charges you wish to level at others.

Don't delude yourself Mike, you couldn't ever hope to know what I or
Kant meant.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:37:47 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
xtra.co.nz> wrote:

Searching google groups revealed nothing about 1 + 6 = 7.

Yet another Gouge lie.

Here's yet another Gouge lie:

On Jan 14, 7:10 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 14, 6:35 am, knucmo hotmailio.coo.uka> wrote:

Context dropping Liar.

I explained that numbers "do not exist in reality", they exist as a
means for man to help him in his quest of knowledge.

Reality is NOT imagined, math is.

Wrong premise, means meaningless question.

Math is the logical use of numbers.

1 is man made, not real, its used as the symbol of a single unit.

MG