Re: Unusual line of reasoning in Kant's response to the antinomy of free will

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:54:51 -0800, chazwin <chazwyman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>On Nov 9, 11:33 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 4:19 am, Scott H <zinites_p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > In response to determinism, Kant explains how the antinomy of free
>> > will arises from a misuse of reason:
>>
>> There's your problem there, you believe that Kant was trying to solve
>> a problem, when in reality he was creating one from a faulty premise.
>>
>> There is matter and each entity of matter has a nature, the nature of
>> an entity of matter is included in its identity, each entity of matter
>> acts according to its nature, an entity of matter can not act in
>> contradiction of its nature.
>
>This makes you a Kantian. Kant was  died in the wool determinist too.
>Kant was addressing age old philosophical problems. He was not
>inventing them, nor was he trying to ignore them as you seem to love
>to do.

Randroids use a number of techniques to evade discussing the issues.
They blur common philosophical distinctions, for example, the
distinction between "meaning" and "referent" (see ITOE). They evade
analyzing issues by dismissing off-hand many of them as "sounding
like" a "mere variant" on some "evil" Kantian or Platonic theme that
Rand already dealt with back in the 1960s. 

Randroids morally denounce ancient philosophers for not having come up
with 20th-century Randian solutions, which is like denouncing Euclid
for failing to invent Riemannian geometry. (I realize that's a bad
example since Rand never came up with any idea as significant as
Riemannian geometry.)  Furthermore, Rand took credit for ideas which
have been known about for over a thousand years, such as the
connection between concepts and referents. I believe this one was
invented by Averroes, but Rand speaks as if she were the originator of
the idea.

--
fantasybedtimehour.com