I don't do holy Kant. I do think the way most argument works is to suppress and as a consequence there are few 'rational words'. Kant was wrong on a priori in geometry - but then I had loads of trouble understanding triangles written on spheres myself and the advantage of coming after Gauss. What I did find in reading Kant was an effort to see complex relations.
On 1 Dec, 16:30, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Nomaparanoius.... HAR..... > > Sometimes I look back on my posts and note quite a few lapses or mistakes > that make me cringe....I wonder how people can understand what I am trying > to get at when I state the exact opposite of what I wanted to convey.... > all due to a misplaced term..... I tend to set up my reasoning by > oppositions of terms and ideas.... sometimes I get forgetful and plug in > the contrary in the wrong place.... ah well.... I know what I mean, if no > one else does.... > > I've been looking over some of the writings and notions of David Hume..... > another smart "empiricist".....English thinkers are the predominant origin > and seat of empiricism... nominalism... and the like....My personal > favorite....I don't cotton much for the teutonic brands of "Idealism"... > and especially Kantian "transcendental Idealism... which generates > phenomenology... I think you've gathered that about me by now, > Archytas.....You, on the other hand, appear to have a tolerance of if not a > liking for Kant and the Phenomenological brand of philosophical > "meditation" techniques HAR.... searching for the Thing in Itself.... the > noumenon which underlies the misleading and transitory phenomenon..... the > Alpha and the Omega... the "GOD-IMAGE" and revealed utmost TRUTH of all > scientific quest........It's a religion... you know... that whole > "direction".... > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:00:26 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > No Nomaparanoius - my allusion was to some postmodern dross. > > > On 30 Nov, 15:35, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Are you suggesting that I am not... readable????HAR....well... my style > > > comes from "thinking" in "things"....Concepts and References.... not in > > > "words and abstractions".....mostly ruminations and phantasms of the > > > "imagination".... tropical fish... words and abstractions are? HAR > > > > On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:20:41 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > > And he was readable Nom! > > > > > On 27 Nov, 16:34, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Locke > > > > > left room for something more speculative than the empirical. / > > Archytas > > > > > > Smart fellow, that Locke.... > > > > > - show quoted text - > > > > > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 7:31:09 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > > > > I don't go with Craig on the 'answer' - but we don't know what > > matter > > > > > > or energy is - we construct notions of such in the present > > including > > > > > > the notion some 'stuff' is older than us. Whitehead's 'occasions > > of > > > > > > experience' perhaps. > > > > > > We sidestep a lot of ontology with method. If you waft a bit of > > lead > > > > > > carbonate in a test tube in a Bunsen flame for a while it will > > turn > > > > > > yellow. That is, on Earth in normal lab conditions. You could > > check > > > > > > this out if arsed. A blind man would need a sighter he could > > trust. > > > > > > If I draw two line on a flip chart, one slightly shorter than the > > > > > > other and get a collaborator to point to the short one and say it > > is > > > > > > the longest - most will follow the lie and point to the wrong one. > > A > > > > > > ruler becomes the arbiter. Much of science is about keeping > > cheating > > > > > > slackers and dumb sheep behaviour out. Particles are just > > accounting > > > > > > devices and theories accounting systems. Science likes to mark to > > > > > > what it posits as reality - unlike banks. What that reality is - > > fuck > > > > > > knows - but just hold the top of this Leiden Jar Nom - the shock > > will > > > > > > only be nominal (or Nominal's?). Make me a radio based on some > > goon's > > > > > > ideas about health giving crystals - or try Wireless World (I was > > once > > > > > > an addict). Tropical fish realism works - but this doesn't negate > > > > > > what Craig has to say and neither does it not working for me. > > Locke > > > > > > left room for something more speculative than the empirical. > > > > > > > On 26 Nov, 18:49, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > The way that it makes sense to me is that energy is only the > > > > experience > > > > > > of > > > > > > > matter interacting with matter, and matter is only experience > > > > divorced > > > > > > from > > > > > > > any given participant. To you, your life is images, feelings, > > > > thoughts. > > > > > > To > > > > > > > me is it a body or brain - materials having an effect on other > > > > materials > > > > > > in > > > > > > > the world. > > > > > > > > Our idea of energy and information are the two greatest > > obstacles to > > > > our > > > > > > > understanding. We have objectified them as existential > > > > > > pseudo-substances, > > > > > > > but I think that the reality is that energy and information are > > > > nothing > > > > > > but > > > > > > > arbitrarily depersonalized sensory-motor experience. Information > > is > > > > > > sensory > > > > > > > input, energy is motor output, each of which define and > > constrain > > > > each > > > > > > > other.. Period. > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 1:36:54 PM UTC-5, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > > > > > I have a "teasing" question for the both of you....Socrates > > and > > > > > > > > Archytas....are Energy and Matter (interchangeable and mutable > > as > > > > they > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > be)... both "physical"... or are they just > > "conceptual"....same > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > put differently ... are Energy and Matter an "idea" or are > > they > > > > an > > > > > > actual > > > > > > > > "real" thing?....Sometimes I think "scientists" get lost in > > their > > > > > > > > "abstractions"..... of formulas and mathematics...theories and > > > > > > > > hypotheses....Me... I think that Energy and Matter are > > Objective, > > > > > > actually > > > > > > > > "there" and "real"....but I'm just a lowly lay-person.... > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, September 8, 2012 11:16:00 AM UTC-4, > > > > > > socr...@bezeqint.netwrote: > > > > > > > > >> Our Modern Scientific Philosophy. > > > > > > > >> =. > > > > > > > >> The simplest atom hydrogen consists of electron and proton. > > > > > > > >> Question. > > > > > > > >> Where did electron and proton come from? > > > > > > > >> Answer. > > > > > > > >> Electron and proton came from big bang. > > > > > > > >> Question. > > > > > > > >> Where the did big bang come from? > > > > > > > >> Answer. > > > > > > > >> The big bang was created when all electrons and protons > > > > > > > >> and all another particles were pressed into a singular point. > > > > > > > >> ==.. > > > > > > > >> If you don’t believe in such philosophy – you are an ignorant > > > > man. > > > > > > > >> =. -- 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.
