Quoting the piffle of a desperate Kantian, Dan Clore;

"The problem with Rand is that no one with a significant knowledge of
science or philosophy could take her seriously."

That is a man totally unsure of his own ability to defend the
schizophrenic Kantian stupidity, that, man's knowledge starts with
understanding the science of his mind.

Its called "an assault from his Ivory Tower", if you are not as
scientifically clever as he wants the world to believe he is, then you
cant claim to be able to understand the meaning of your own knowledge
and philosophy.

Clore is claiming, through the process of mindless Kantian
regurgitation, that to find the meaning, the theory, the epistemology
of man's knowledge, to find and to explain where man gets all of his
knowledge from, takes an understanding of science, the science of the
mind specifically, because according to the dopey Kantians, that is
where all of man's knowledge begins.

These people, the Kantians, want the mind pulled apart, by science, to
look for the substance, the mechanics that makes the mind work and by
doing that, he will discover the *meaning* of his knowledge.

On 25-Jul-2007, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

To mount an assault *on* the ivory tower, all you need is Descartes thought
experiment.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:58:21 -0700, Michael Gordge wrote:

Is this something to discuss, or should we just stand in awe of your
objectivity?

On Jul 25, 12:58 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

The quote you presented does appear to be very dogmatic; that being an
assumption one makes uncritically, with no attempt at reflective
justification, and which one feels is perfectly evident, something
which, stands in no need of serious examination, but what about the
context the quote was in? Do you have the prior sentences that were
before or even after it to get at what the author was trying to say?

You mention "mystical thinking" and I have caught you many times
believing mystically in some sort of certainty you claim we can have
about our beliefs.

On Jul 26, 11:13 pm, ZerkonX zerkonx.net> wrote:

Please yourself, I dont give a fuck.

Her name was mentioned twice, however as much as you wanted it to be,
the thread had nothing to do with Rand's personal life, it was an
analogy of the Kantian schizophrenics pulling apart the clock (the
mind) hoping to find the meaning of time (reason).

Looking inward for the data existing outward.

If you want to start your own thread about Rand's personal life go
ahead, I suggest you start it in chazzzzzzz'zzz dunny you'll attract
all the bull-ants from Iceland and the termites from China with that
one, but fuck off from here ewe commie simpleton.

Michael Gordge

On Jul 27, 2:30 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 26, 2:05 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

On Jul 28, 2:58 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

Oh so you reckon that you can give me an example of a thing you know
to exist, but its not actually existing as you believe it to exist?

So how did you get to know anything about it in the first place?
surely you dont believe the last person you read or heard? surely you
try and discover things as they really are?

I really dont understand your question, I have no idea how to get know
or to ever believe anything about anything unless I logically
integrate (search for and identify and eliminate any contradiction)
the data / information gained from my five senses, (eyes ears nose
feel touch) the more of them I use the better and greater the chance I
have to identify and eliminate contradictions.

On Jul 28, 11:03 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

You again confusing deduction with induction, sufficiency with
necessity. The theoretical nature of things-as-they-seem, on the best
theories so far, make it more probable that we cannot be "certain"
about future events, even if they are highly "probable."

Definitions of INDUCTION & DEDUCTION

Induction.