In an other thread I asked.

A new Kantian to the group S. Jouanny - who clearly regards himself
as knowing Kant more or better than all other Kantians, claimed

"This is a little trickier, but Kant certainly does not deny the law
of non-contradiction. In fact, he even says of the principle that it
is the "universal and fully sufficient principle of all analytical
knowledge". [A151]"

I answered my own question to make it easier for Kantians with;

"No, Kant does not say that. Perhaps people masquerading as Kantians
do; in truth they are closer to the absolute idealists such as Hegel
or Fichte."

The problems for the newbie S. Jouanny were in full swing within just
a few more of his posts.

On 2 Aug, 22:03, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:
A new Kantian to the group S. Jouanny - who clearly regards himself

S. Jouanny and knucmo are one and the same. I have one account at
Google, and a dodgy one which I pay for, which some times messes up.
Here follows a rebuttal of your claims, point for point.

On Aug 2, 2:03 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

I doubt if many Kantians think Kant meant there was a contradiction in
reality. The contradiction is inductive or theoretical beliefs about
reality which, since they are based upon probabilities, allow two or
more contradictory theories simualtainiously. Kant was a fan of
empirical or theoretical science and probably would like the
"coherence theory" when dealing with beliefs about probabilities.

On Aug 3, 9:09 am, knucmo hotmail.com> wrote:

But you've snipped the bit where I followed and explained the entire
process of *justification* of the data of the perceptions, here it is
again.

Its the next step of reason that does the justification, i.e. NON-
CONTRADICTORY identification AND integration of those experiences
(perceptions of sense data) that do the justifying.

NOTE justification is not a concept I use, I used it only because you
had.

"There is empirical knowledge which has its source in

On Aug 3, 10:41 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

in

The dopey unthinking moron had at least 3 contradictions of reality in
just the first two paragraphs containing just 234 words of his
diatribe called The Critique of Pure Reason here's just one;

But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means
follows that all arises out of experience.

He claims you can have knowledge gained by your senses of whether or
not you took a crap - by using many of your senses that were
*experiencing things* while you were in the dunny and yet Kant reckons
that the next poor sod, in the dunny behind you, doesn't get any of
his knowledge of space while trying to hold his nose while calculating
the area between him and the door he needs to cross to get out of the
bathroom.

MG

On Aug 3, 9:09 am, knucmo hotmail.com> wrote:

At least you're honest, chazzzzz and Timmmmm deny they're not each
other.

All of your knowledge is contextual.

There are times when you will ignore an action at your peril and other
times when the identical action taken will cause you harm.

A *duty* to do anything is the most repugnant, the most evil, the most
draconian and is the commie inspired control freakish of all of Kant's
standards to determine man's expected ethical behaviour.

Before you act you check your premises, you think, and then think
again you check your proposed actions against your values for
contradictions, taking into account the entire context of the
situation, and THEN you act accordingly.

It has NOTHING to do with any fucking duty, it has everything to do
with how you choose your own moral standards and if you choose
anything but your own life as that standard then you will reap what
you sow, THINK.

Using only Logic explain the emotion of either Love or Hate.

On Aug 4, 2:07 am, "needles" bresnan.net> wrote:

Two things, logic *on its own* is not a valid means to explain
anything of, in or about reality.

In reality, there has to be something existing *in sensory reality* to
apply logic (non-contradictory identification) to.

Our emotions are real, why? because they are based upon sensory
evidence, in reality our emotions are our responses to our value
judgements.

Which does not mean that sometimes our emotions can be wrong why?
because they are or were based upon an incorrect identification of
what we initially percieve.

And often the identical situation can lead to several and totally
different emotional feelings from different individuals, depending on
what each knows of the context. I can give examples of that but you
have specifically asked about love and hate.

On Aug 2, 10:58 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

"Understanding that the right to choose your own path is a sacred privilege.
Use it. Dwell in the possibility."

*Oprah Winfrey*