Re: Kant on human differences

On Aug 18, 8:49 pm, jos horikx <jhor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> As I said: the main element in the distinction of the sensible and the
> ethical world is freedom.

HOW you know is far more im****tant than what you know.

And being Kantian, you could have found your knowledge, of the concept
freedom, under a rock in a tree or Kant's Knowledge Fairy might have
given it to you for being good, without you having any say or choice,
like Kant claims it did for your knowledge of space and time, FFS.

YOUR PROBLEM;

You claimed, your understanding of reality, in the way you deal with
other men, is different to the way you understand the reality of
sensory existents.

Therefore you have a problem, your idea that freedom is the "sensible"
is not anything you have discovered from observing anything in nature
nor in the nature of man, but rather from the identical means that the
mystics claim to have discovered the idea of their god, by being
sensible, but you wont say HOW and WHY you claim it is sensible.

Fact, if you have not discovered freedom in sensory reality, in
nature, then you can have nor claim any knowledge of it, unless you
claim your knowledge via the means of being a mindless moronic Kantian
robot.

Hint, man's life exists, those who claim to be granting man's life and
man's freedom, the overwhelming evidence is, they are the identical
s*** violating it, specifically parasitical socialist arsewipes, to
name but one lot of human s***.

Man's freedom can only be violated, man's freedom has nothing to do
with being sensible. The mystics claim their ideas about god are
sensible, how does YOUR idea differ in origin than theirs?

Freedom can be found in nature and in nature freedom can only be
violated.


Michael Gordge