On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 06:18:22 -0700, Michael Gordge wrote:
>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.
Sure, if rephrased, that _is_ trancendentalism: "I entitle transcen-
dental all knowledge which is occupied not so much with objects as
with the mode of our knowledge of objects in so far as this mode of
knowledge is to be possible a priori."
>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.
No, freedom is an _idea_. (or more precice: it is rather a postulate
of practical reason, but in this context is suits to present it as an
idea). Not only in my philosophy that is so, but also (and certainly)
in yours. These were your words, weren't they: "No, the world just is,
waiting to be identified"? hahaha. You certainly have a problem.
>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.
I claimed nothing on that field, I even didn't reply on it. "Other
man" is your problem, not mine.
>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.
I did not say anything like this at all.
>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.
If you like to say something about some philosophy, then the first
thing you've got to do is to study that philosophy. What you do is the
other way around: You have a philosophy (you think, only god knows
why) and than you are trying to spread it wherever you can.
>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***.
As I know Kant was not a socialist. Not even Hegel (the philosopher of
the Christian state Prussia) was a socialist. But Hegels philosophy
had absolutely nothing to do with Kantianism. Marx was a socialist but
Marx has, philosophically spoken, less to do with Kant than with Hegel
because in his time and his place he almost was forced to backup
Hegelianism in some way or another.
But if you have more, ore more profound knowledge on the subject,
please elaborate on it.
>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?
Ehh, god is an idea as well?
>Freedom can be found in nature and in nature freedom can only be
>violated.
You're talking ****. "Freedom" is _not_ an object for pure empirical
study (in space and time).
JH
|
