brian fletcher wrote:
> Hey Tim,
>
> Michael has pissed off so many people here with his style, that he
tries to
> evoke any response he can get.
>
> He's like a dog with a toy. He gets his teeth into something, and wont
let
> go.I dont remember reading anything he writes that doesnt refer to Kant.
>
> It is fairly obvious that he needs to know "the Gordge in itself" :-)
>
> BOfL
>
>
> "Tim" <qwery@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:_r2dnd1zstqVfkLbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:1189068408.131159.255830@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> I asked a besotted, devout and extremely devoted knuckle-dragging
> >> commie inspired Kantian Tim;
> >>
> >> Why did he need to "know a carrot in itself" to know with 100%
> >> certainty whether or not that the carrot was not in fact, an elephant
> >> in itself?
> >>
> >
> >
> > And three times now I've explained the straw-man nature of your
question.
> >
> >> Tim said, he didn't need to do that at all, (he obviously knows with
> >> 100% certainty that they are in fact not the same entity), however.
> >>
> >
> > No he didn't
> >
> >> Tim said, he needed to "know a carrot in itself" (HOW that happens he
> >> didnt want to talk about) he needs to know a carrot in itself to know
> >> for certain things like, the taste of the carrot itself.
> >>
> >
> > No he didn't
> >
> >> Soooo I asked Tim;
> >> What would he gain in his knowledge of the taste of a carrot, by
> >> "knowing the carrot in itself", that he couldn't or wouldn't know
with
> >> 100% certainty, about the taste of the carrot, by eating it?
> >>
> >
> > No, you are either a liar or you can't read.
> >
> >> Tim's run away, and who could blame him?
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, who could, after all trying to reason with you is like debating
a
> > vending machine.
> >
> >> The point is, if the besotted Kantian doesn't need to know a carrot
in
> >> itself, to know with 100% certainty that its not an elephant in
> >> itself, and so logically, he wouldn't have to know an elephant in
> >> itself to know with 100% certainty that it was not a carrot in
> >> itself.
> >>
> >
> > And he's off again.
> >
> >> Now, add another object, say a car, according to this besotted
> >> Kantian, the car in itself can be identified with 100% certainty as
> >> not being a carrot in itself and as not an elephant in itself, and of
> >> course the elephant can be identified as not being a carrot or a car.
> >>
> >> Now, its getting funny, add a few million make it a zillion, oh what
> >> the ****, zillions of zillions more objects, using the identical
> >> principle of the besotted, (according to the Kantian idea that things
> >> have to be known in themselves), each and every object can be
> >> eventually known in themselves, as an absolute and stand alone
object,
> >> with its very own unique identity including its very onw nature and
> >> its very own taste (where applicable), through a process of the
> >> elimination of the things that its known not to be and with 100%
> >> certainty, by the Kantian himself and without getting to know
anything
> >> in itself.
> >>
> >> Honestly these people are stupid, eh Mortal and chazzz?
> >>
> >>
> >> Michael Gordge
> >>
> >
> > Son, you are an idiot.
> >
brian fletcher wrote:
> Hey Tim,
>
> Michael has pissed off so many people here with his style, that he
tries to
> evoke any response he can get.
>
> He's like a dog with a toy. He gets his teeth into something, and wont
let
> go.I dont remember reading anything he writes that doesnt refer to Kant.
>
> It is fairly obvious that he needs to know "the Gordge in itself" :-)
>
> BOfL
>
>
> "Tim" <qwery@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:_r2dnd1zstqVfkLbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:1189068408.131159.255830@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> I asked a besotted, devout and extremely devoted knuckle-dragging
> >> commie inspired Kantian Tim;
> >>
> >> Why did he need to "know a carrot in itself" to know with 100%
> >> certainty whether or not that the carrot was not in fact, an elephant
> >> in itself?
> >>
> >
> >
> > And three times now I've explained the straw-man nature of your
question.
> >
> >> Tim said, he didn't need to do that at all, (he obviously knows with
> >> 100% certainty that they are in fact not the same entity), however.
> >>
> >
> > No he didn't
> >
> >> Tim said, he needed to "know a carrot in itself" (HOW that happens he
> >> didnt want to talk about) he needs to know a carrot in itself to know
> >> for certain things like, the taste of the carrot itself.
> >>
> >
> > No he didn't
> >
> >> Soooo I asked Tim;
> >> What would he gain in his knowledge of the taste of a carrot, by
> >> "knowing the carrot in itself", that he couldn't or wouldn't know
with
> >> 100% certainty, about the taste of the carrot, by eating it?
> >>
> >
> > No, you are either a liar or you can't read.
> >
> >> Tim's run away, and who could blame him?
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, who could, after all trying to reason with you is like debating
a
> > vending machine.
> >
> >> The point is, if the besotted Kantian doesn't need to know a carrot
in
> >> itself, to know with 100% certainty that its not an elephant in
> >> itself, and so logically, he wouldn't have to know an elephant in
> >> itself to know with 100% certainty that it was not a carrot in
> >> itself.
> >>
> >
> > And he's off again.
> >
> >> Now, add another object, say a car, according to this besotted
> >> Kantian, the car in itself can be identified with 100% certainty as
> >> not being a carrot in itself and as not an elephant in itself, and of
> >> course the elephant can be identified as not being a carrot or a car.
> >>
> >> Now, its getting funny, add a few million make it a zillion, oh what
> >> the ****, zillions of zillions more objects, using the identical
> >> principle of the besotted, (according to the Kantian idea that things
> >> have to be known in themselves), each and every object can be
> >> eventually known in themselves, as an absolute and stand alone
object,
> >> with its very own unique identity including its very onw nature and
> >> its very own taste (where applicable), through a process of the
> >> elimination of the things that its known not to be and with 100%
> >> certainty, by the Kantian himself and without getting to know
anything
> >> in itself.
> >>
> >> Honestly these people are stupid, eh Mortal and chazzz?
> >>
> >>
> >> Michael Gordge
> >>
> >
> > Son, you are an idiot.
> >
Certainty concerning metaphysical "things-in-themselves" doesn't even
matter. Such speculations are BS anyway apart from any usefulness that
some proto-science postulations might have in eventually evolving into
testable theories (like ancient Greek atomism). That's where I both
agree with and differ with defunct logical positivism.
What's im****tant is that we have or can come to a conceptual concensus
about "things-for-us" in our shared, phenomenal world. It's the
postmodernists and neopragmatists of today that have challenged that
the brains or minds of humans do not have a universal, objective
template that they follow in their representation and catergorizations
of nature (cultural dependance strewn across cultural diversity). Kant
is irrelevent since he was a pessimist about metaphysical knowledge.
Getting rid of Kant's philosophy of mind would not have an impact upon
neopragmatism. Richard Rorty was anti-representationalist and rejected
Kant and the whole Platonist and Aristotlean tradition of philosophy.
It is a drug-induced fantasy that some militants entertain that if you
could eliminate "dat debble Kant" then you could eliminate 20th-
century philosophical trends and neuro- and cognitive science.
While they waste their time beating on a strawman, Cultural Theory has
already started dying-out in academic circles as the result of world
events (or so the claim goes).
|
