|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Dec 22, 2007 14:59
What knowledge of time does man have which does not also include a
requirement of the knowledge of motion, relationship, duration,
measurement and more recently numbers? NOTE, numbers have not always
been used in the concept of time.
And yet according dopey Kant, the hierarchical order of man's
knowledge of time is that it begins before his knowledge of all other
concepts.
Kant claims man's knowledge of time begins at the instant he begins to
"experience objects which awaken his faculty of cognition." Kant
places time in a hierarchical order which precedes any and all other
concepts which are required by man to give time its meaning.
The simple fact is, that man cant have knowledge of anything, unless
there is some thing of matter or an event (which requires matter)
existing to identify, so why does Kant seperate man's knowledge of the
concept time from the concepts, measurement, motion, duration?
The answer is, because in Kantian mishmashed to fucking hell
epistemology, the state of mind called "consciousness" precedes that
which gives consciousness its identity, existence.
|
| Show full article (1.55Kb) |
|
| | 93 Comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Dec 22, 2007 15:48
On Dec 22, 2:59 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:> What knowledge of time does man have which does not also include a
> requirement of the knowledge of motion, relationship, duration,
> measurement and more recently numbers? NOTE, numbers have not always
> been used in the concept of time.
>
> And yet according dopey Kant, the hierarchical order of man's
> knowledge of time is that it begins before his knowledge of all other
> concepts.
>
> Kant claims man's knowledge of time begins at the instant he begins to
> "experience objects which awaken his faculty of cognition." Kant
> places time in a hierarchical order which precedes any and all other
> concepts which are required by man to give time its meaning.
>
|
| Show full article (5.01Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ArtArt Date: Dec 22, 2007 17:46
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:26:25 -0800 (PST), malenoid@ hotmail.com wrote:
>You were aware of temporal progression long before your
>ability to represent the passage of time on a number line, years
>before you even knew the word "time." And you were always
>aware that your memories were of past times. Nobody had to
>tell you that your memories came from the past. You did not
>teach yourself how to become aware of the passage of time, and nobody
>taught you how to do this either. You can't explain how this
>awareness came to be.
You have a point. I'll call it "intuitive time" ... the sense a child
may have of time well before he/she can reason in temporal
terms. Learning to speak ... noun - verb ... object - action ...
involves comprehension of objects moving. But the child
becomes confused when asked about the duration of an
action ... he/she "lives in the now moment".
|
| Show full article (1.19Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Dec 22, 2007 19:29
On Dec 23, 8:48 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
> If we remove from our empirical concept of a body, one by one, every
> feature in it which is [merely] empirical, the colour,
You say colour is empirical but space is not, thats funny.
Hey Mortal, colour is a concept, its a symbol used by my man to
describe a specific nature of matter, colour weight height density are
all only concepts.
In reality you can only remove matter and when you do, colour, height,
density, weight ALL go with it.
And so can the matter called space be removed, but not totally, there
is always something remaining, why? because when there's no matter
left, then thats the state man has called nothing, which means there
cant be anything, not even space, dont be silly, THINK Mortal.
> the hardness or
> softness, the weight, even the impenetrability,
Ditto all concepts, they all go with the matter.
> there still remains
> the space
|
| Show full article (1.94Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Dec 22, 2007 19:35
On Dec 23, 9:03 am, Ledraychere gmail.com> wrote:
> To the Immortalist :
> Now I know why Michael
And to fuck with you, ewe sleazy grossly under-rated idiot, rotten
desperate cowardly dopey context dropping fucking ignorant arrogant
mystical god bothering confused knuckle-dragging queer cunt, deal with
the subject idiot, Knowledge Of Time, if you dare.
Michael Gordge
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Dec 22, 2007 19:43
On Dec 22, 7:29 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:> On Dec 23, 8:48 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> If we remove from our empirical concept of a body, one by one, every
>> feature in it which is [merely] empirical, the colour,
>
> You say colour is empirical but space is not, thats funny.
>
empirical is some part of general inductivity or inductive probability
while necessity is touted to be deductive, all or nothing. Color can
be subject to theoretical probability while time is necessary ant
therefore deductive. Thats why I made the claim more or less that both
non-contradictory-identification and pressuppositions about time are
in the realm of the deductive. Please review the differences between
the inductive and the deductive.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/ded-ind.htm
|
| Show full article (3.26Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Dec 22, 2007 19:57
On Dec 23, 10:46 am, Art zilch.com> wrote:
>
> You have a point. I'll call it "intuitive time" ...
Another classic example of the stealing and bastardizing of concepts.
*intuition* is a concept, its a symbol man uses to describe a faculty
of man, its an already gained piece of knowledge and or previous
experiences, stored in man's memory (in-tuiton = learnt and stored in)
recalled and applied to a current situation or event.
Man is born tabula rasa.
He is born with a nature, including but not limited to an ability to
reason. Reason is man's only means to knowledge and reason can not
begin until there is some thing sensed by him as existing for him then
to identify.
If man is born with knowledge of time, which he's not, then why stop
at time, why not knowledge of water, air, food and why not give him a
born knowledge of god as well, that'd keep the mystics like Ledarcee
happy FFS?
If man is born with knowledge of time, then how come so many of you
can not even agree on its meaning?
|
| Show full article (1.10Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Dec 22, 2007 19:59
On Dec 23, 12:43 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
Your point?
MG
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: bernardZbernardZ Date: Dec 22, 2007 20:45
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:59:44 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
> xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >>
>>What knowledge of time does man have which does not also include a
>>requirement of the knowledge of motion, relationship, duration,
>>measurement and more recently numbers? NOTE, numbers have not always
>>been used in the concept of time.
>>
>>And yet according dopey Kant, the hierarchical order of man's
>>knowledge of time is that it begins before his knowledge of all other
>>concepts.
>>
>>Kant claims man's knowledge of time begins at the instant he begins to
>>"experience objects which awaken his faculty of cognition." Kant
>>places time in a hierarchical order which precedes any and all other
>>concepts which are required by man to give time its meaning.
>> ...
|
| Show full article (2.12Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: Dec 22, 2007 21:37
"Michael Gordge" xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:8d53dc11-1382-4600-915c-b8e49200a66f@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 23, 8:48 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
Snip
> the hardness or
> softness, the weight, even the impenetrability,
Ditto all concepts, they all go with the matter.
To quote Buddy Holly..
"Well I Guess It Doesnt Matter Anymore"
The he disappeared off the radar.
To a point?
:-)
BOfL
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
