|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Randroid TerminatorRandroid Terminator Date: Feb 8, 2007 22:57
As much as I hate to advertise for this sort of thing, I still think
it needs to be brought out in the open. I'm referring to the
webpage found at
http://www.personalityresearch.org/metatheory/kantians.html
which states:
"Immanuel Kant believed that observations are structured by
the a priori categories of the mind. These innate categories
(e.g., cause and effect) are not subject to voluntary change.
Pessimistic Kantians believe that the real world beyond our
innate conceptual framework is forever unknowable. Optimistic
Kantians believe that God created our innate conceptual
framework to mirror the real world."
What can we Kant-supporters do about inexorable crap like
that description? Every single sentence of that is wrong.
Innate structure? Wrong. God created our conceptual
framework? Wrong, even according to Kant. The real world
beyond our conceptual framework? That is a contradiction
in terms, because our "conceptual framework" determines
what is real in the world for us, and what is not.
|
| Show full article (1.34Kb) |
|
| | 10 Comments |
|
|
Author: George DanceGeorge Dance Date: Feb 12, 2007 17:08
> On Feb 11, 12:15 am, "George Dance"
>
>> Bullshit; two is a fact about your hands, and about your feet, and
>
> That's metaphysics George, a different subject, two is only a number
> and a number is a concept man invented
"Two is a concept man invented" is metaphysics. Claiming that there
isn't two of anything is a metaphysical claim, not an epistemic one.
> to measure and to give a
> meaning to the quantity of single units
NYou jus claimed that numbers didn't really exist; now you're trying
to sneak them back in by calling them 'quantities.'
> , single units is all that
> exists in sensory reality.
>
'Single unit' is an oxymoron. If only single things existed, there
wouldn't be any 'units.'
|
| Show full article (6.08Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: George DanceGeorge Dance Date: Feb 13, 2007 07:05
> Since you are obviously only entertaining yourself here, I chose
> to respond to your post by starting at the end.
That's good (not your silly speculation about me, but your method).
Now I can snip some of the old backthread, and try to cut to the
chase.
> On Feb 9, 5:18 pm, "George Dance" wrote:
>
>
>>> On Feb 9, 11:18 am, "George Dance" wrote:
>
> ...
|
| Show full article (12.13Kb) |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: TimTim Date: Feb 13, 2007 07:15
> On Feb 12, 8:20 am, "George Dance" wrote:
>
>> That says the same thing as his first sentence: that, chronologically,
>> all knowledge begins with experience.
>
> Read the question he asks BEFORE he says
>
> "In respect of time, therefore, no knowledge of ours is antecedent to
> experience, but begins with it"
>
> In that question he is clearly saying that man's concept, called
> *time*, does not originate from man's sense percetions of any object,
> which is why he says ***In respect of time, therefore,***
>
> Indeed, the comma before and after the *therefore* clearly shows he
> regards the origin of man's knowledge of time as having a totally
> different means to, *man's sensory perceptions*.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.84Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: UgUg Date: Feb 13, 2007 07:22
"George Dance" wrote:
>[...] I have no use for those who try to win arguments
>through semantic tricks.
Me either, in fact I will go further and say that I have no use for
those who try to win arguments. Win an argument and all you have is a
little gold star, it means you won the argument, it says nothing about
what is true and what is not. So who do I have use for? Those who
are actually trying to uncover the truth. I'm not sure how many of
those folks there are. I'm not sure I can say with absolute certainty
that I am one who is able to see the truth without rejecting it out of
hand because it would invalidate everything I believe that I know. So
where does that leave any of this stuff George? It seems to me that
the whole business of "philosophy" is standing there with its dick in
its hand and a stupid look on its face.
--
Ug!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: George DanceGeorge Dance Date: Feb 13, 2007 16:34
On Feb 13, 3:56 pm, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:> On 13 Feb 2007 07:05:18 -0800, "George Dance"
> wrote:
>
>>> Since you are obviously only entertaining yourself here, I chose
>>> to respond to your post by starting at the end.
> .
>>That's good (not your silly speculation about me, but your method).
>>Now I can snip some of the old backthread, and try to cut to the
>>chase.
>
> I see you responding decently to Immortalist, but not to me. Why is
> that?
Same reasons I respond decently to other Kantians here (Publius, 1Z,
and Chazwin), and not to the one self-proclaimed Objectivist; everyone
gets the response his post deserves.
Here's a glaring example, from this very post, as to why you're
receiving the type of response:
|
| Show full article (3.10Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: George DanceGeorge Dance Date: Feb 13, 2007 18:20
On Feb 10, 6:41 am, U...@here.world wrote:
> "George Dance" wrote:
>> It's the point in your argument where you define Reality as a
>>product of thought that we start to diverge.
>
> "thought" is something that I suspect only occurs within "reality"
> subsequent to the manifestation of reality from "concept".
> --
Well, yeah; I'm not quarrelling with the idea that I have a concept of
reality; when I think about reality I'm thinking about my concepts;
when I make substantive claims about reality those claims are based on
my concept; etc., etc. What I do quarrel with are the ideas that (1)
there's no reality except for my (and others') concepts, and (2) if
there is an actual reality, no one can know anything about it; that
all anyone can know about are their own concepts.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: George DanceGeorge Dance Date: Feb 13, 2007 21:02
> On Feb 10, 1:02 am, "Randroid Terminator" hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> The concept of Reality
>
> Define reality as used right there.
>
In Kantianism, Reality is a category of the mind; it supplies the part
of the judgement of the object that gives reality to the entire
object; sort of the way the Higgs Boson is said to combine with other
particles to give them their mass.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: George DanceGeorge Dance Date: Feb 13, 2007 21:09
> On Feb 10, 1:02 am, "Randroid Terminator"
>
>> Consciousness is thus primary in making this
>> determination, and you would be hard-pressed to
>> argue otherwise.
>
> If conscrousness is apprehending space and time, then given the fact
> that the gaseous substance existing between in and around solid matter
> (space) and the duration of action between two or more entities (time)
> existed long before man arrived in the universe, then surely that puts
> space and time well ahead of man's state of mind, therefore space and
> time (entities and action of existence) are the primacy of man's
> knowledge and surely you would be hard pressed to argue otherwise.
You don't understand Kant at all. In Kantianism, Both space and time
are categories of the mind; like Reality, but different categories.
That's fully compatible with two key tenets of Gordgianism: that
entities do not exist in space, and that time exists only in human
minds.
|
| Show full article (1.32Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Malrassic ParkMalrassic Park Date: Feb 13, 2007 11:56
On 13 Feb 2007 07:05:18 -0800, "George Dance"
wrote:
.
>> Since you are obviously only entertaining yourself here, I chose
>> to respond to your post by starting at the end.
.
>That's good (not your silly speculation about me, but your method).
>Now I can snip some of the old backthread, and try to cut to the
>chase.
I see you responding decently to Immortalist, but not to me. Why is
that?
>> On Feb 9, 5:18 pm, "George Dance" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> On Feb 9, 11:18 am, "George Dance" wrote:...
|
| Show full article (26.86Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
