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.
>
He didn't reject them, he merely questioned the degree of truth that
beliefs about senses can have. You believe something about the senses,
but what makes those beliefs certain?
> 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 -
|
