Irony? On Jun 26, 12:26 am, Lonnie Clay <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote: > The society in which *I* live will *not* tolerate dissent or disruption. I > have *personal* experience of that. See Wikipedia article "consensus > reality". Mental health professional enforce the rules. > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > On Saturday, June 25, 2011 12:36:48 PM UTC-7, chazwin wrote: > > > On Jun 25, 8:55 am, Lonnie Clay <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > I'll take a stab at it. If you deny consensus reality, then you *will* > > > probably be declared insane. > > > Whose consensus? Surely every Protestant denied the Catholic > > consensus; the muslim denies the Christian; the Hindu the Buddhist ad > > infinitem. > > > There is no "consensus" reality. Surely that is simply the false claim > > of the objectivist. > > Given what Kant has shown, should we not treat with utter suspicion > > any one who tries to claim that their position is objective? Is that > > not the howl of the totalitarian? > > > > So you must at least give lip service to the > > > claim that Solipsism is a flawed philosophical view. Is that a good > > enough > > > response? It shows by implication nothing regarding my viewpoint since I > > > have been declared insane... > > > The moment I agree with your position we then share a consensus. But > > it might be just us two that shares this point of view. If 10 others > > disagree, does that make us mad and them sane? > > And if society tells us that x,y, and z simply is the truth ought we > > not to challenge that? > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > On Saturday, June 25, 2011 12:41:34 AM UTC-7, chazwin wrote: > > > > > In what way is Kant justifiably called a Subjectivist or Idealist? > > > > > We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within > > > > ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only my > > > > own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the > > > > existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately > > > > and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the > > > > perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus > > > > inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of the word, > > > > therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer > > > > their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the > > > > perception as an effect of something external that must be the > > > > proximate cause … . It must not be supposed, therefore, that an > > > > idealist is someone who denies the existence of external objects of > > > > the senses; all he does is to deny that they are known by immediate > > > > and direct perception … . > > > > —Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f. > > > > > Given this statement, how is any position which asserts a Realist > > > > position ever justifiable?
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
