On Aug 12, 2:22 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 10:07 pm, pico <pico.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Malrassic Park wrote:
> > > On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:51:58 -0700, Immortalist
> > > <reanimater_2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > >> On Aug 11, 6:41 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >>> Quoting Dopey Kant
>
> > >>> "But we don't synthesize reality, make it up, it exists
independently
> > >>> of us, and because reality exists independently of all possible
> > >>> experience it remains permanently hidden."
>
> > > Liar. This is not a Kant quote. Some Objectivist you are.
>
> > It seems to be someone else's paraphrase or summation, not a direct
> > quote. Using the phrase "hidden" suggests the paraphraser (if is is a
> > paraphrase) might have Heidegger's Alethia in mind. But I digress, and
> > did not Heidegger?
>
> But of course no Kantians ever wants to talk about why Kant rejected
> man's senses, his eyes ears nose feel and touch as the ONLY means he
> has to trigger the mind for ALL of his knowledge, of the existence of
> matter outside of his mind, in othe words there's no such thing as
> innate inborn knowledge.
>
Is that where you got the quote? Kantians believe that
"representations" of the external world are not the external world.
This again is like saying that a photograph of a pile of gold is
actually gold and not a representation of gold.
Anyway your avoiding his question about the quote.
Red herring is a metaphor for a diversion or distraction from an
original objective. An example can be found in academic examinations,
particularly in mathematics and physical sciences. In some questions,
information may be provided which is not necessary to solve the given
problem. The presence of extraneous data often causes those taking the
exam to spend too much time on the question, reducing the time given
to other problems and potentially lowering the resulting score. Red
herrings are frequently used in literature and cinema mysteries, where
a character is presented to make the reader/viewer believe he/she is
the perpetrator, when in reality it is someone far less suspect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
> Kant version goes like this, the eyes and ears and skin sense, say an
> explosion, and send a message to the brain of the sensory evidence,
> the brain ignores ALL 3 of those signals, but those signals in reality
> are all that the brain has to prompt the brian to tell the eyes ears
> and skin that they aint seen heard felt anything until the brain has
> identified what they've seen heard and felt and if the brain cant
> identiify them from the knowledge gven to it at birth (innate for
> ****'s sake) then Kant's primacy state of consciousness, for ****'s
> sake, instructs the eyes ears and nose that they must un-see un-hear
> and un-feel that explosion.
>
> And of course no Kantian ever wants to define precsiely what Kant
> meant by the concept knowledge, how Kant seperated and identified the
> concept knowledge from all other concepts, such as space and time and
> distance and weight.
>
> Why is that pico?
>
> Why dont you be the first Kantian ever in the history of the dopey
> git, to explain what purpose Kant claimed man's senses e.g. his eyes
> and ears have to help man's mind gain its knowledge of the concepts
> numbers, space, time and intuition.
>
> Michael Gordge- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
