How Do You Find Something Permanently Hidden? Simple, Ask Kant
Michael Gordge
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."
Sooo what dopey Kant is saying there is;
You are blind to things in reality because you have eyes, you are deaf
to things in reality because you have ears, you cant touch things in
reality because you have hands, you cant smell things in reality
because you have a nose and you cant feel things in reality because
you have nerve endings.
Ignore your eyes ears nose touch and feel because reality is
permanently hidden even from those experiences.
Man's faculty of sense, Kant is saying, play no part at all in man's
ability to help him determine the real from the imagined.
Meaning, accordng to Kant, determing reality from fiction is all 100%
up to your mind, (because reality is always hidden even from your
exprience, i.e. your eyes are painted on) which is why the mystics saw
and see no threat to their own god stupidity from anything dopey Kant
ever regurgitated.
The mystics claim god cant ever be known (but how they know that they
cant explain) and Kant claims reality remains permanently hidden even
from your senses / experience (but how he knows that he cant explain,
why? because the dopey prick invented it).
So just how Kant can claim to know for certain, all about something
(reality) that he claims is always hidden even from his experiences,
is something you just have to trust him on and obviously many Kantian
mystics do, poor sods.
It must be also noted that Kant also said, [sic].. that all of man's
knowledge begins with experience of that there is no doubt", but
obvioulsy not his knowledge of reality, because reality is always
hidden even from his expriences, which leaves one wondering just what
the fuck Kant meant by knowledge.
Michael Gordge
Immortalist
> 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."
>
Kant firmly believed that there is an independent reality outside the
world of all possible experience, calling this the world of the
noumenal, the world of things as they are in themselves, and of
reality as it is in itself. The world of phenomena was the world of
things as they appear to us - the directly known world of actual
experience.
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/ikant.htm
Ewing outlines the debate between many of Kant's initial followers and
Kant himself. Many readers of Kant object to his doctrine of things in
themselves on the following grounds. Kant says that we can have no
knowledge about things in themselves but in stating this we must mean
something by "things in themselves." This implies knowledge about
things in themselves. Also, if physical objects are appearances of
things in themselves, things in themselves must be subject to the
category of reality. Ewing contends that Kant implicitly refutes these
objections. The way in which Ewing does this is by pointing out Kant's
distinction between determinate knowledge and indeterminate thought.
We have no knowledge of things in themselves, but it is useful to have
thoughts about them. These thoughts are not based on any positive
assumptions but rather on a lack of any features, spatial or temporal,
that make up knowledge. Also sense human thought is subject to the
categories, our thoughts about things in themselves will be defined in
terms of the categories. I found Ewing's discussion of the issue to be
the most lucid and accessible thus far. This book gave me my initial
understanding of the issues, and was a most valuable introduction to
the field.
http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/modern/litrev/Kant-appearances.html
Kant's negative claim: we can know nothing about things in
themselves.
Kant's positive epistemological doctrine is explicitly designed to be
a response to skepticism. Yet at the same time Kant's view includes
some very skeptical-sounding claims. Indeed, although Kant argues
against both Humean skepticism and Berkeleian idealism, his view often
appears to me to be a rather odd combination of both.
Kant insists that all our knowledge is knowledge of what he calls
appearances. Appearance is usually contrasted with reality, and so
this sounds rather like a denial that we know anything about reality.
It is also reminiscent of Locke's claim that all our knowledge is of
the relations of ideas. But these apparent connections are at least
somewhat misleading, since Kant regards the entire empirical world as
a collection of appearances. Kant does not for a moment doubt that we
know a great many things about objects external to ourselves; both
mathematics and natural science, he believes, give us such knowledge.
The conventional distinction between appearance and reality, between
the way things look to us (sometimes mistakenly) and the way they
really are, is for Kant a distinction within the realm of
appearances.
And yet there is something ultimately subjective about appearances,
and thus about the whole empirical world, for Kant. The world of
appearances is partly our own creation, yet Kant thinks that standing
behind this world of appearances is a really real world that we have
nothing to do with, which is utterly independent of our knowledge. Our
world, the empirical world, the world of appearances, is objective in
the sense that it is the same for all of us: it is intersubjective.
But it is subjective in that it is a uniquely human world. Kant thinks
that there could be creatures with other sorts of intuition than ours.
(Does he think there could be creatures with other sorts of
understanding? I do not know.) Such creatures would not share our
world. But something, the external source of our experience, would be
the same for us and them. This, one is tempted to say, is the really
real world. At any rate, this external source comprises what Kant
calls the "things in themselves." A thing in itself is a thing as it
is independent of any human conceptualization. And Kant argues that we
can know nothing at all about things in themselves.
This suggests the following characterization of Kant's position. Think
of the problem of skepticism as the problem of how, given knowledge of
the way things appear to us to be, we can acquire knowledge of how
they really are (and remember Descartes' linking of the appearance-
reality and mental-physical distinctions, so that appearances are
thought of as mental and reality as physical). Then two main responses
to the problem are Berkeley's reductive response of insisting that
reality is really just a subdivision of the appearances so that a
properly sophisticated knowledge of the appearances is automatically
also knowledge of reality, and Hume's skeptical response of accepting
that reality is separate from appearance and denying that we can know
anything about reality. (Well, probably this isn't quite the right
characterization of Hume. Never mind.) Now, Kant seems to combine both
responses! He insists with Berkeley that (empirical) reality is just a
matter of appearance, so that knowledge of empirical reality is as
straightforward as knowledge of appearances. This is the positive part
of his doctrine. But he insists with the skeptic that we can know
nothing of the really real world, the world of things in themselves.
And this negative part of his doctrine, while admittedly it does not
threaten any of our practices (as Humean skepticism also did not),
seems as skeptical as the hardest-core skeptic could wish.
It is useful to distinguish three related doctrines of Kant's. There
is, first, the doctrine that we cannot have knowledge of anything we
cannot experience. Anything beyond the reach of experience is
unknowable. (But we must be careful to construe the reach of
experience broadly enough; we may not be able to directly experience
dinosaurs or quarks, but they are systematically related to things we
do directly experience, and that is good enough.) In this Kant is the
heir of the empiricists and the precursor of the positivists. The
second doctrine is that we can have no experience of things in
themselves. Of course it follows from the first and second doctrines
together that we can know nothing about things in themselves, but many
who accept the first doctrine will want to reject the second. Finally,
Kant's third doctrine is that God, freedom and immortality all belong
to the realm of things in themselves, and thus to the realm of things
about which we can know nothing. About this third doctrine I would
like to assert dogmatically that I think it entirely unjustified. It
seems to me that our knowledge of these matters is no less direct than
our knowledge of the more theoretical parts of physics or the more
remote parts of history. In my view, if there really is a distinction
between the phenomenal and the noumenal, between appearances and
things in themselves, then God and related matters are thoroughly
phenomenal, a part of the world of appearances. --Though of course if
they exist then like everything else they have noumenal underpinnings.
But given that much of Kant's motivation for insisting on the
unknowability of things in themselves has to do with protecting God
from the failure of arguments for his existence, and with protecting
freedom from the law of causality, accepting my assertion might leave
him with little reason for insisting on his sharp distinction between
knowable phenomena and unknowable noumena.
http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/modern/kant.html
> Sooo what dopey Kant is saying there is;
>
> You are blind to things in reality because you have eyes, you are deaf
> to things in reality because you have ears, you cant touch things in
> reality because you have hands, you cant smell things in reality
> because you have a nose and you cant feel things in reality because
> you have nerve endings.
>
Representations of something are not the thing representented, thats
like saying that a picture of an object [representation] is the object
the picture was taken of, which is absurd. But it is funny when you
get all aroused about Kant. You should cross-post to
alt.philosophy.kant and get some good responses to.
lest you is looking at your representations,but even then your
representations of your representations are not the thing represented
right?
Malrassic Park
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 11, 6:41 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> 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.
--
Yes, we speak English!
Michael Gordge
>
> Kant firmly believed that there is an independent reality outside the
> world of all possible experience,
Geeeeeesh, I already said that, now pay attention, the question again
is;
HOW does Kant know that there is such a reality FFS, if he cant ever
know there is that reality because that reality is always hidden from
his experience?
Kant DID say that "all of man's knowledge begins with experience, of
that there is no doubt".
Have a crack at giving an answer from your own mind and in less than
200 words.
Michael Gordge
Michael Gordge
> Liar. This is not a Kant quote. Some Objectivist you are.
I thought you dopey Kantians were happy with contradictions?
sheeeeesh FFS Sparky, make up your mind, is reality determined by you
via non-contradictory identification or not?
Michael Gordge
pico
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?
D H
wrote:
But "quite proper" for Randians to agree with the communists, who held
the view that increasing certainty about ontological reality can be
achieved over time via scientific progress or etc. Lenin attacked both
Kant and Mach's metaphysical pessimism in his book, "Materialism and
Empirio-criticism", and the Marxist glossary sums their issues up
succinctly below:
"Engels' famous explanation of 'thing-in-itself' in Ludwig 'Feuerbach,
Part 2' as properties of things which are at one point unknown, but
though the progress of science become known, is a well-known
explanation of the materialist theory of knowledge, and owes a great
deal to Hegel's critique of Kant's 'thing-in-itself'."
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/t/h.htm
I take it that Kant himself held that humans participate in the same
phenomenal world because we all use the same system of representation
(thus, a kind of empirical realism)? It wasn't until the 20th century,
when postmodern philsophers starting placing emphasis on language
being essential to consciousness, that skepticism was introduced into
even the empiricist foundation, via contending that different cultures
supposedly had different conceptualizations (cultural relativism,
constructivism, etc).
Phil Roberts, Jr.
D H wrote:
> Malrassic Park
>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:51:58 -0700, Immortalist
>><reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Aug 11, 6:41 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> 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."
>>
"Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and
are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external
world."--A. Einstein in The Evolution of Physics with L. Infeld,
1938.
pico
> D H wrote:
>> Malrassic Park
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:51:58 -0700, Immortalist
>>> <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 11, 6:41 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> 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."
A citation would be helpful. Did Kant really say "remains permanently
hidden"? It may not matter. Moving on...
> "Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and
> are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external
> world."--A. Einstein in The Evolution of Physics with L. Infeld,
> 1938.
Concept is a difficult term in the philosophical domain. Generally,
let's agree that a Concept is something that stands in place of
something else, usually considered physical reality.
I'd say Kant and Einstein were on to something.
D H
Logical empiricism was the vogue back in 1938, which deemed
metaphysics to be meaningless (thus Einstein's personal nod to non-
realism at the time, which he is sometimes accused of straying from
later). It is retrospectively held that science engages in
methodological naturalism rather than metaphysical naturalism, so that
science (if not always PoS) at least recognizes some ontological
arguments (like physicalism) as being "useful" if not proveable. But
"methodological naturalism" was only coined in 1983 (by a philosopher
and evolutionary theist), thus how it winds-up being a retrospective
evaluation that science is claimed to have not been engaging in
ontological dogma in the past.
Michael Gordge
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.
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
fuck's sake) then Kant's primacy state of consciousness, for fuck'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
Michael Gordge
>
> - Show quoted text -
Identification of an already existent is not the creation of that
existent, how can you create that which already exists?
Kant's dopey epistemology, in particular his version of how man gains
his knowledge of the concepts space time and intuition, now that IS a
creation of a sick mind.
MG
pico
> 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...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 11, 6:41 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> 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?
> [... snip MG's desperately angry nonsense...]
> Why is that pico?
I cannot explain your peculiar thinking.
> Why dont you be the first Kantian ever in the history of the dopey
> git,
There is nothing in my post that supports evidence that I am a Kantian.
Read it again. And again. You are looking for conflict where there is
none. Can you not read without the noise in your head filling in your
misunderstandings with your agenda? Find someone else as your imaginary
Kantian. Jesus Christ, I swear you write like some kinda religious nutcase.
brian fletcher
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1186895749.6...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 12, 1:51 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Kant firmly believed that there is an independent reality outside the
>> world of all possible experience,
>
> Geeeeeesh, I already said that, now pay attention, the question again
> is;
>
> HOW does Kant know that there is such a reality FFS, if he cant ever
> know there is that reality because that reality is always hidden from
> his experience?
How does Gordge not know? Because he never stops attacking Kant. Ever wonder
why he just doesnt desist?
I know, but he doesnt acknowledge there is such a state.
The explainations mean nothing to him. He's too bust seeking, to find.
> Kant DID say that "all of man's knowledge begins with experience, of
> that there is no doubt".
>
> Have a crack at giving an answer from your own mind and in less than
> 200 words....
Multiplied by 10 000 threads ..;-)
BOfL
>
>
> Michael Gordge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Immortalist
Inductive reasoning has this non-contradictory nature in relation to
the past, but once you propose that this non-contradictory reasoning
extends across all time including the future, it goes beyond possible
experience and you are not entitled to your conclusions about it.
Every day the sun has risen
The sun rose yesterday
The sun rose the day before that
The sun rose the day before that, etc.
Therefore, the sun will rise tommorow.
Hume's problem is very simple, he asks why we should have the right to
believe conclusions that we arrive at through inductive logic. He
claims that nothing can be proved in an accurate and undenaible way
through induction, and therefore he claims that we have no reason for
beliving that the sun will rise tommorow, or that radioactive dating
technics will absolutely hold tommorow, etc.
By introducing assumptions we go beyond the given evidence our
experience affords: generally what we assume as cause is not fully or
not at all given in experience, and neither are many of the predicted
effects we deduce from these assumptions.
No observation or experiment, however extended, can give more than a
finite number of repetitions; therefore, the statement of a law - B
depends on A - always transcends experience. Yet this kind of
statement is made everywhere and all the time, and sometimes from
scanty material. It is impossible to justify a law by observation or
experiment, since it transcends experience.
http://www.maartensz.org/logic/Induction/induct0.html
> Michael Gordge
Immortalist
> 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...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Aug 11, 6:41 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> 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.
>
Is that where you got the quote? Kantians believe that
"representations" of the external world are not the external world.
This again is like saying that a photograph of a pile of gold is
actually gold and not a representation of gold.
Anyway your avoiding his question about the quote.
Red herring is a metaphor for a diversion or distraction from an
original objective. An example can be found in academic examinations,
particularly in mathematics and physical sciences. In some questions,
information may be provided which is not necessary to solve the given
problem. The presence of extraneous data often causes those taking the
exam to spend too much time on the question, reducing the time given
to other problems and potentially lowering the resulting score. Red
herrings are frequently used in literature and cinema mysteries, where
a character is presented to make the reader/viewer believe he/she is
the perpetrator, when in reality it is someone far less suspect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
> 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
> fuck's sake) then Kant's primacy state of consciousness, for fuck'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 -
Malrassic Park
That is exactly what Objectivists are.
Michael Gordge
> Kantians believe that
> "representations" of the external world are not the
> external world.
I know the Kantian FAITH inside out - back to front.
Faith because they, the Kantians are accepting a dumb, totally stupid,
idea without any sensory evidence offered or even considered for
accepting that idea.
They, the Kantians, are only regurgitating a dopey contradicting idea
of Kant's which originated inside Kant's dopey head i.e. yes INVENTED,
based on a dopey invented idea Kant had, that he, Kant, obviously
didn't believe that his own body could be a representation in or of
the external world to other people.
The mystics god came and comes to man through his mind and his mind
alone too.
Apply that statement to itself Mortal, a Kantian is saying, that,
Kantians believe that their own minds and bodies can not be the
representation of an entity in, or of, the outside world to other
people, its just idiotic bloody nonsense, stupid.
Michael Gordge
Michael Gordge
>
> Inductive reasoning has this non-contradictory nature in relation to
> the past, but once you propose that this non-contradictory reasoning
> extends across all time including the future,
The future by definition never arrives Mortal, sort out your
definitions / identity of your concepts.
The best you can ever do, with the concept man has called the future,
is to make predictions based on the exact continuation of current
situation/s and man's current knowledge.
Your knowledge can only be of the now and past, based on the currently
known and available and previous evidence and experience.
All of man's knowledge is contextual and hierarchical.
There is absolute 100% certain evidence that man can make extremely
accurate predictions, life saving and life enhancing predictions, but
those predictions are always contingent because the future by
definition never arrives, man deals with and lives in the now now now
now using the current and past data.
The only people who claim or might claim a definite future are the
mystics and or the Kantians who cant even claim they are the real and
absolute representations of the outside world to other humans.
Michael Gordge
Michael Gordge
> How does Gordge not know?
What I know or dont know doesn't matter Brian, the onus of proof is
upon he who asserts the claim.
Not even someone as mystical as you can deny the existence of your own
ideas without contradiction Brian.
Soooooo you are left with no option but to identify your ideas and if
you claim your ideas have any reality about them, then they can not
contain contradiction and not even you can deny that without accepting
it as the standard to do so.
Reality can be a bitch to get away from, you can only dream yourself
away from reality.
> Because he never stops attacking Kant. Ever wonder
> why he just doesnt desist?
Because irrationalism is the enemy of man, evil grows from
irrationalizm, how's god?
Michael Gordge
pico
You would progress intellectually if you spent less energy trying to
type-cast people with your incomplete knowledge, and more time examining
the larger field.
Naming things is not understanding them.
brian fletcher
> On Aug 13, 9:00 am, "brian fletcher" <brian...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>> How does Gordge not know?
>
> What I know or dont know doesn't matter Brian, the onus of proof is
> upon he who asserts the claim.
You just love table tennis.
Knowing is NOT assertion. Proof is the ball of the game you play.
>
> Not even someone as mystical as you can deny the existence of your own
> ideas without contradiction Brian.
I also know the essense of thought....the rain cycle is a great
illustration.
>
> Soooooo you are left with no option but to identify your ideas and if
> you claim your ideas have any reality about them, then they can not
> contain contradiction and not even you can deny that without accepting
> it as the standard to do so.
Do you ever get dizzy?I worry about you sometimes. hehehehehe....What of
ideas of contradiction? They do exist, and I just proved the fact by having
a few.
Think of the cloud part of the cycle.
>
> Reality can be a bitch to get away from, you can only dream yourself
> away from reality.
Now you are talking. A mystic once gave his view of the "beginning". In the
beginning God dreampt. Now dont go off. He was using the term God as a
reference point for those who were coming 'from" that delusion. The dreamer
dreams of dreaming. reality, in that sence, is a dynamic state. It is also a
parallel state, where on can be in two places (or more) at once.
> >> Because he never stops attacking Kant. Ever wonder
>> why he just doesnt desist?
>
> Because irrationalism is the enemy of man, evil grows from
> irrationalizm, how's god?
Evil grows from resistance, and the instinct to put the other person
"right". At the base level, this is an aspect of the mind looking for
company, and thus, confirmation bases of agreement or contradiction. Both
relative validation points.Both delusional, and temporary.
Hows god? This bit is full of the joys...thanks for asking.Like the mystic,
I'm using the term because you seem to bring it up quite often.and have
answered in a way that may be useful to you.
BOfL
>
>
> Michael Gordge
>
Malrassic Park
Piddle. You don't even know me. I used to consider myself an
Objectivist "religious nutcase" for about 20 years. One reason I
originally went online was to listen to the online stream of the
Leonard Peikoff Radio show back in 1998. I was one of his biggest
fans. Ayn Rand IS the knowledge fairy for these Objectivist Randroids.
All you have to do is read her works and you'll be omniscient too. It
is the Word of their Goddess.
pico
"Malrassic Park" <Male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d171c3lc9oaku6n6o...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:13:06 -0500, pico <pico.net> wrote:
>
>>Malrassic Park wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:20:18 -0500, pico <pico.net> wrote:
>>Naming things is not understanding them.
M. Park - I messed up on that response thinking I was replying to the Gody
one. Sorry.
> [...] Ayn Rand IS the knowledge fairy for these Objectivist Randroids.
> All you have to do is read her works and you'll be omniscient too. It
> is the Word of their Goddess.
She definitely emanates Dominatrix.
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>
>"Malrassic Park" <Male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d171c3lc9oaku6n6o...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:13:06 -0500, pico <pico.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Malrassic Park wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 17:20:18 -0500, pico <pico.net> wrote:
>
>>>Naming things is not understanding them.
>
>M. Park - I messed up on that response thinking I was replying to the Gody
>one. Sorry.
It's ok. Your error gave me a chance to introduce myself a little.
Gouge is a religious nutcase. His purpose on these forums is merely to
declare to all his triumphalistic notions regarding Objectivism and
Ayn Rand. Thus every discussion he engages in he believes he has won.
Each one is a "victory" for him and his religion. His purpose is not
to debate, but to win and be victorious against evil "socialist
Kantians" on usenet. And a "Kantian" consists of any non-Objectivist.
In this way, Mr. Gouge convinces himself that he can take on numerous
evil opponents at one time and declare victory and triumph for his
religion over and over again.
>> [...] Ayn Rand IS the knowledge fairy for these Objectivist Randroids.
>> All you have to do is read her works and you'll be omniscient too. It
>> is the Word of their Goddess.
>
>She definitely emanates Dominatrix.
Ayn Rand's secret love affair with Nathaniel Branden fulfilled her
Dominique/dominatrix needs. Unfortunately for her, she had to keep the
affair a secret, and then lie about it when the inevitable bitter end
appeared.
Immortalist
> On Aug 13, 11:43 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Inductive reasoning has this non-contradictory nature in relation to
> > the past, but once you propose that this non-contradictory reasoning
> > extends across all time including the future,
>
> The future by definition never arrives Mortal, sort out your
> definitions / identity of your concepts.
>
> The best you can ever do, with the concept man has called the future,
> is to make predictions based on the exact continuation of current
> situation/s and man's current knowledge.
>
> Your knowledge can only be of the now and past, based on the currently
> known and available and previous evidence and experience.
>
> All of man's knowledge is contextual and hierarchical.
>
> There is absolute 100% certain evidence that man can make extremely
> accurate predictions, life saving and life enhancing predictions, but
> those predictions are always contingent because the future by
> definition never arrives, man deals with and lives in the now now now
> now using the current and past data.
>
As long as you continue to concede that "extremely accurate
predictions" are not identical to certainty, I agree. You yourself
have just admitted that there is always a chance for error and that
beliefs about observations always have a chance of being mistaken.
> The only people who claim or might claim a definite future are the
> mystics and or the Kantians who cant even claim they are the real and
> absolute representations of the outside world to other humans.
>
You were the one making claims about the next moment with the present,
and I was merely claiming that these are probabilities not
certainties.
> Michael Gordge
extr...@hotmail.com
> On Aug 13, 11:49 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Kantians believe that
> > "representations" of the external world are not the
> > external world.
>
> I know the Kantian FAITH inside out - back to front.
>
> Faith because they, the Kantians are accepting a dumb, totally stupid,
> idea without any sensory evidence offered or even considered for
> accepting that idea.
>
> They, the Kantians, are only regurgitating a dopey contradicting idea
> of Kant's which originated inside Kant's dopey head i.e. yes INVENTED,
> based on a dopey invented idea Kant had, that he, Kant, obviously
> didn't believe that his own body could be a representation in or of
> the external world to other people.
>
You really should learn some science and brain science. The current
theories are related to some of Kants ideas about representationalism.
Actually Berkely was the main contributor to the popularization of
representationalism. Its as simple as memory when your eyes are
closed, you manipulate re-representations of past sensory stimulation;
What is Representationalism?
Representationalism is the philosophical position that the world we
see in conscious experience is not the real world itself, but merely a
miniature virtual-reality replica of that world in an internal
representation. Representationalism is also known (in psychology) as
Indirect Perception, and (in philosophy) as Indirect Realism, or
Epistemological Dualism.
Why Representationalism?
As incredible as it might seem intuitively, representationalism is the
only alternative that is consistent with the facts of perception.
The Epistemological Fact (strongest theory): It is impossible to have
experience beyond the sensory surface.
Dreams, Hallucinations, and Visual Illusions clearly indicate that the
world of experience is not the same thing as the world itself.
The observed Properties of Phenomenal Perspective clearly indicate
that the world of experience is not the same as the external world
that it represents.
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/Representationalism.html
Representationalism (or indirect realism) with respect to perception
is the view that "we are never aware of physical objects, [but rather]
we are only indirectly aware of them, in virtue of a direct awareness
of an intermediary [mental] object. (Dancy, 145) Because there are
both direct and indirect objects of awareness in representationalism,
a correspondence relation arises between the mental entities directly
perceived and external objects which those mental entities represent.
And thus perceptual error occurs when the two objects of awareness do
not correspond sufficiently well. In opposition to
representationalism, both (direct) realism and idealism agree that
perception is direct and unmediated, despite their disagreements about
what the object of perception is. (Dancy, 145) In any form of direct
perception, no correspondence relationship is possible, since there is
only one object of perception. Thus only representationalism will give
rise to the view that perceptual errors exist and must be part of a
theory of perception. Nevertheless, both idealism and realism must
still account for the facts that are referred to as "perceptual
errors" by the representationalist.
http://www.dianahsieh.com/undergrad/rape.html
...representation is central to psychology as well, for the mind too
is a system that represents the world and possible worlds in various
ways. Our hopes, fears, beliefs, memories, perceptions, intentions,
and desires all involve our ideas about (our mental models of) the
world and other worlds. This is what humanist philosophers and
psychologists have always said, of course, but until recently they had
no support from science...
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0162.html?
> The mystics god came and comes to man through his mind and his mind
> alone too.
>
> Apply that statement to itself Mortal, a Kantian is saying, that,
> Kantians believe that their own minds and bodies can not be the
> representation of an entity in, or of, the outside world to other
> people, its just idiotic bloody nonsense, stupid.
>
Wrong, Kant meant that a representation of a part of the world, inside
the brain, is not identical to the world, presented to the brain via
the senses. Again its like your saying a picture of something is the
actual thing.
In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant'main goal was to find out what is
certain and what is empirical. Your reading much more into it than his
intent.
> Michael Gordge
Malrassic Park
>Wrong, Kant meant that a representation of a part of the world, inside
>the brain, is not identical to the world, presented to the brain via
>the senses. Again its like your saying a picture of something is the
>actual thing.
First, I'd like to invite you over to
humanities.philosophy.objectivism and post something similar to this
using Kant's example (from the Prolegomena) of the full moon appearing
larger on the horizon than it does at its zenith.
I don't know that Kant said the representation is not identical to the
world. I guess you are just trying to say that the thing-in-itself is
not the appearance.
Some question whether or not "representation" is best translated as
"presentation," and in fact the Pluhar edition of the CPR contains the
latter translation. That way you don't have to write 're-represent', I
suppose. The distinction is not that subtle. To re-represent, which is
really to re-present, is to display some mental content via
imagination. But we don't consider the re-presentation of an external
object (say, from memory) to be external.
A picture is not the actual thing, as you said, yet it has to reside
someplace. And this place is given by the forms, either in
imagination, or in sensibility alone as presentation (that content
which is given to the senses first).
>In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant'main goal was to find out what is
>certain and what is empirical. Your reading much more into it than his
>intent.
You're wasting your time arguing with Mr. Gouge, professional
Randroid.
Michael Gordge
> You yourself
> have just admitted that there is always a chance for error.....
Fucking disgusting liar, I did no such thing, context dropping is a
sign of the dishonest and desperate. Man's knowledge is contextual, I
was very specific and gave the context.
> I was merely claiming that these are probabilities not
> certainties.
So why dont you explain the uncertainties you have about what would
happen to your head and life if it was left totally submerged in a
bucket of 100% pure sulphuric acid.
MG
Immortalist
> On Aug 14, 1:28 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You yourself
> > have just admitted that there is always a chance for error.....
>
> Fucking disgusting liar, I did no such thing, context dropping is a
> sign of the dishonest and desperate. Man's knowledge is contextual, I
> was very specific and gave the context.
>
Then you are requesting a retraction of the statement you made
equating predictions with faith?
Gordge said;
The best you can ever do, with the concept man has called the future,
is to make predictions based on the exact continuation of current
situation/s and man's current knowledge.
Here is where you said it;
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/ea7c120054d77596
> > I was merely claiming that these are probabilities not
> > certainties.
>
> So why dont you explain the uncertainties you have about what would
> happen to your head and life if it was left totally submerged in a
> bucket of 100% pure sulphuric acid.
>
I may have strong beliefs about the high probability that I would die,
but this does not make my beliefs absolutely certain and with
absolutely not chance of error.
> MG
Immortalist
>
>
>
>
>
> > Malrassic Park wrote:
> > > On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:51:58 -0700, Immortalist
> > > <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Aug 11, 6:41 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> 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
> fuck's sake) then Kant's primacy state of consciousness, for fuck'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
> Gordge said;
>
> The best you can ever do, with the concept man has called the future,
> is to make predictions based on the exact continuation of current
> situation/s and man's current knowledge.
I was specifically talking about the concept man calls *future*, which
I had also said in previously, by definition never arrives, and which,
in typial Kantian desperate dishonesty, Mortal claimed that was me
saying that I had just admitted there is always uncertainty about
everything.
Michael Gordge
Michael Gordge
> You really should learn some science and brain science.
I'll do that when the subject is science, its NOT you idiot, the
subject is epistemology, its the ONLY subject that can make science
make sense.
> The current
> theories are related to some of Kants ideas about representationalism.
Representationalizzzzzmzzzzz of WHAT FFS? you idiot.
Explain HOW the fuck you have a representationalizzzzzm zzzzm if
nothing is existing to have that representationalizzz zzzzzm of.
Michael Gordge
Michael Gordge
>
> First, I'd like to invite you over to
> humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Yeah fuck off over there, thats where all the fucking cowards and
retards go when they cant defend their own dopey ideas.
MG