Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

YYW and Nothing (i.e. Kant)

YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 1:55:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
To the extent that I invariably find myself tasked with this most extensive and lugubrious task of propagating the proliferation of a vast and diverse body of text that is quintessentially devoid of meaning, I undertake that effort here, now and presently. As a reader you will be wise to take diligent notice to observe that in addition to the overwhelmingly overwritten character of these extensively long sentences there is both an observable and demonstrable lack of recognizable or coherent substance. The choice of diction is plausibly and ostensibly intentional, for it both has the effect of showcasing my finely tuned command of the English language by the lexical over expansion of all that which I should doubtlessly endeavor to say and it highlights what will be purposeful demonstration of the experience of reading the vast and numerous works of one specific and widely celebrated continental philosophers who is widely regarded as having conjured the most pristinely exquisite philosophical moral system ever written. But, invariably from those among us who were accosted by undergraduate professors of character as draconian as they are deranged an account of the experience of Critique of Pure Reason is most appropriately recorded in much the same ongoing and extensively nonsensical writing style of that bombastically hyperbolic and excessive wordsmith and philosopher known as Immanuel Kant. It should be noted that in this note I shall in addition to making no effort whatsoever to inventing anything new or original of my own volition (such as was the case with the aforementioned philosopher's moral system, which in due regard can sufficiently trace the bulk of its roots to the religious traditions which said aforementioned philosopher claimed to subscribe to), but rather convolute and muddle every idea that I am capable of transcribing in such a way as to conspicuously obscure its conception from any cognitively lucid person who may be so unfortunate as to attempt to decipher that which I am presently advocating for. In that rite if successful I will marry in prose the pointless futility of James Joyce with the over worded nonsense of the previously mentioned thinker who I above devote an extensively lengthy portion of text to criticizing, with the expressed purpose of, aside from saying nothing coherent whatsoever, mimicking the effect of what it is like to read Critique if one is not capable of following both the unnecessary and elaborate cognitive gymnastics required to tread that most encumbering intellectual quicksand that even a single sentence of the aforementioned author's prose so inexcusably resembles. As such, I hope but doubt that this has been in any sense a beneficial use of your time or mine and for that reason I will occasion myself to spare us both the tediousness and insanity of continuing further. If only Kant had been so considerate...
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 2:06:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 1:55:33 AM, YYW wrote:
To the extent that I invariably find myself tasked with this most extensive and lugubrious task of propagating the proliferation of a vast and diverse body of text that is quintessentially devoid of meaning, I undertake that effort here, now and presently. As a reader you will be wise to take diligent notice to observe that in addition to the overwhelmingly overwritten character of these extensively long sentences there is both an observable and demonstrable lack of recognizable or coherent substance. The choice of diction is plausibly and ostensibly intentional, for it both has the effect of showcasing my finely tuned command of the English language by the lexical over expansion of all that which I should doubtlessly endeavor to say and it highlights what will be purposeful demonstration of the experience of reading the vast and numerous works of one specific and widely celebrated continental philosophers who is widely regarded as having conjured the most pristinely exquisite philosophical moral system ever written. But, invariably from those among us who were accosted by undergraduate professors of character as draconian as they are deranged an account of the experience of Critique of Pure Reason is most appropriately recorded in much the same ongoing and extensively nonsensical writing style of that bombastically hyperbolic and excessive wordsmith and philosopher known as Immanuel Kant. It should be noted that in this note I shall in addition to making no effort whatsoever to inventing anything new or original of my own volition (such as was the case with the aforementioned philosopher's moral system, which in due regard can sufficiently trace the bulk of its roots to the religious traditions which said aforementioned philosopher claimed to subscribe to), but rather convolute and muddle every idea that I am capable of transcribing in such a way as to conspicuously obscure its conception from any cognitively lucid person who may be so unfortunate as to attempt to decipher that which I am presently advocating for. In that rite if successful I will marry in prose the pointless futility of James Joyce with the over worded nonsense of the previously mentioned thinker who I above devote an extensively lengthy portion of text to criticizing, with the expressed purpose of, aside from saying nothing coherent whatsoever, mimicking the effect of what it is like to read Critique if one is not capable of following both the unnecessary and elaborate cognitive gymnastics required to tread that most encumbering intellectual quicksand that even a single sentence of the aforementioned author's prose so inexcusably resembles. As such, I hope but doubt that this has been in any sense a beneficial use of your time or mine and for that reason I will occasion myself to spare us both the tediousness and insanity of continuing further. If only Kant had been so considerate...

The Fool: I think it is the best philosophic work ever. Literally. I Think he is most intellegent I could possilbly think of. Even more then Eistien. LOL. Its not easy, I tell you that. If you are trying read it on you own, LOL> I would be forever lost if I didnt have a walk through by a Kant scholar. But I get, now very well. It my favorite piece of philosophy. Give me an line you don;t understand and I will translate it in modern English for you.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 2:13:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 2:11:37 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Sorry, it's just impossible for me to read without paragraphs. Like an ocd.

The Fool: He is saying he can't make sense of The Critique of Pure reason..By Kant.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 2:18:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 2:13:13 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:11:37 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Sorry, it's just impossible for me to read without paragraphs. Like an ocd.

The Fool: He is saying he can't make sense of The Critique of Pure reason..By Kant.

Just a rant I have been needing to get off of my chest for a while. The more I read of Kant the less I like him.
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 2:20:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 2:18:17 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:13:13 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:11:37 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Sorry, it's just impossible for me to read without paragraphs. Like an ocd.

The Fool: He is saying he can't make sense of The Critique of Pure reason..By Kant.

Just a rant I have been needing to get off of my chest for a while. The more I read of Kant the less I like him.

The Fool: Yes its like pulling teeth, I here. But ask me a question. from something you are confused with.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 2:30:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 2:20:19 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:18:17 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:13:13 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:11:37 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Sorry, it's just impossible for me to read without paragraphs. Like an ocd.

The Fool: He is saying he can't make sense of The Critique of Pure reason..By Kant.

Just a rant I have been needing to get off of my chest for a while. The more I read of Kant the less I like him.

The Fool: Yes its like pulling teeth, I here. But ask me a question. from something you are confused with.

My problem is that my german is -though conversationally fluent- is academically insufficient. There is much that I understand, but much is left wanting. If you were to teach a single hour lecture on it though, how would you approach it. Where would you start? (Imagine the lecture is targeted for university sophomore and junior philosophy majors who have completed their 100 and some 200 levels). I know this is an absurd request, but that's my issue. That's what I'm trying to do.
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 3:37:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 2:47:29 AM, FREEDO wrote:


The Fool: That is hilarios.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 3:38:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 2:30:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:20:19 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:18:17 AM, YYW wrote:

The Fool: He is saying he can't make sense of The Critique of Pure reason..By Kant.

Just a rant I have been needing to get off of my chest for a while. The more I read of Kant the less I like him.

The Fool: Yes its like pulling teeth, I here. But ask me a question. from something you are confused with.

My problem is that my german is -though conversationally fluent- is academically insufficient. There is much that I understand, but much is left wanting. If you were to teach a single hour lecture on it though, how would you approach it. Where would you start? (Imagine the lecture is targeted for university sophomore and junior philosophy majors who have completed their 100 and some 200 levels). I know this is an absurd request, but that's my issue. That's what I'm trying to do.

Part one:
The Fool: ha one hour.. First you have to understand that its old German. So you need a etymology dictionary. If its in english. You have to watch for errors in the translatorr because I would say most people don't grasp it properly. The Translater has to be as perfect in both languages and as smart as Kant. Probably a rare species.

What he is doing, is weeding out what a science of metaphysics can even be of, to even be possible. And with that he is critiquing how much we could possibly know in metaphysics. And by metaphysics means that which we could know devoid of physical sense experience.

Its a critique of Pure reason in that is showing where metaphysics start to be nonsense. By pure reason, Logic/math/geometry. Reason is also of will. (aka emotions) But not pure.

And by The Understanding. He means the concepts in which physical experience is understood by. aka That principle which that operating system, by which physical sense-data is processes in to meaningfull experience aka non-random physical experiences, object. ets.
enabling to have non-random.

physical information:

Modern langauge: Sense data
kant language: manifolds

Intuition:
Modern langauge: immediate emotional sensation.
Kant langauge: immediate physical sensation.

The Understanding:
Modern language: Usually refers to reasoning.
Kant language: Physical conceptualization.

Formal science(modern language)=Pure reason(Kant language)
There is so many translation to be made from Kant language to the modern understanding of the terms. That is what makes it so hard. Like 60% has to be translated to a modern version of terms used today. The very words that you know mean something completly different in Kant language.

1 major point he is making:

Is that Bad/irrational metaphysics is caused when Reason, (motivated/emotional +pure reason) uses concepts of the understanding. Particularly that of matter/substance(existence seperate from mind/consciousness; \modern language) which could never be of possible physical experience(empirical)
And therefore are nonsensical claims.

He is pretty much completly rejecting all of theology as making any sense, or being of rational claims of knowledge. In that its beyond possible human understanding. While at the same time trying to dodge being accused of going against the church. He called those things The Numina.
But that we could never know about their nature. He is kind of like you where he is saying Religion can only be Faith Based. But never of Reason. (but he sounds like a Closet Athiest like Hume.) Remember if you are an open Athiest at the time, then NO PUBLISH and No career.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 3:59:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 2:30:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:20:19 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:18:17 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:13:13 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:11:37 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Sorry, it's just impossible for me to read without paragraphs. Like an ocd.

The Fool: He is saying he can't make sense of The Critique of Pure reason..By Kant.

Just a rant I have been needing to get off of my chest for a while. The more I read of Kant the less I like him.

The Fool: Yes its like pulling teeth, I here. But ask me a question. from something you are confused with.

My problem is that my german is -though conversationally fluent- is academically insufficient. There is much that I understand, but much is left wanting. If you were to teach a single hour lecture on it though, how would you approach it. Where would you start? (Imagine the lecture is targeted for university sophomore and junior philosophy majors who have completed their 100 and some 200 levels). I know this is an absurd request, but that's my issue. That's what I'm trying to do.

Actually, I've found it's useful to read the critique alongside listening to introductory classes (audio stuff you can get for podcasts) on it.

Kant's ideas were great, but he was a horrific communicator. I don't see how someone could jump into Kant with the "Critique" without having some sort of reading aid or introductory lesson to help translate Kant.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 4:29:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 3:59:47 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:30:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:20:19 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:18:17 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:13:13 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:11:37 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Sorry, it's just impossible for me to read without paragraphs. Like an ocd.

The Fool: He is saying he can't make sense of The Critique of Pure reason..By Kant.

Just a rant I have been needing to get off of my chest for a while. The more I read of Kant the less I like him.

The Fool: Yes its like pulling teeth, I here. But ask me a question. from something you are confused with.

My problem is that my german is -though conversationally fluent- is academically insufficient. There is much that I understand, but much is left wanting. If you were to teach a single hour lecture on it though, how would you approach it. Where would you start? (Imagine the lecture is targeted for university sophomore and junior philosophy majors who have completed their 100 and some 200 levels). I know this is an absurd request, but that's my issue. That's what I'm trying to do.

Actually, I've found it's useful to read the critique alongside listening to introductory classes (audio stuff you can get for podcasts) on it.

Kant's ideas were great, but he was a horrific communicator. I don't see how someone could jump into Kant with the "Critique" without having some sort of reading aid or introductory lesson to help translate Kant.

This. It's best when you get someone else to state it, just cos it's not pulling teeth but getting the same knowledge.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 4:37:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 3:38:50 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:30:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:20:19 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:18:17 AM, YYW wrote:

The Fool: He is saying he can't make sense of The Critique of Pure reason..By Kant.

Just a rant I have been needing to get off of my chest for a while. The more I read of Kant the less I like him.

The Fool: Yes its like pulling teeth, I here. But ask me a question. from something you are confused with.

My problem is that my german is -though conversationally fluent- is academically insufficient. There is much that I understand, but much is left wanting. If you were to teach a single hour lecture on it though, how would you approach it. Where would you start? (Imagine the lecture is targeted for university sophomore and junior philosophy majors who have completed their 100 and some 200 levels). I know this is an absurd request, but that's my issue. That's what I'm trying to do.

Part one: On how and what is of the nature of Metaphysics V 1.1

The Fool: ha one hour.. First you have to understand that its old German. So you need a etymology dictionary. If its in english. You have to watch for errors in the translator because I would say most people don't grasp it properly. The Translater has to be as perfect in both languages and as smart as Kant. ANd he have be extremly good at rational philosophy. (Enlightment philosophy) Probably a rare species.

What he is doing, is weeding out what a science of metaphysics can even be of, to even be possible. And with that he is critiquing how much we could possibly know in metaphysics. And by metaphysics means that which we could know devoid of physical sense experience.

Its a critique of Pure reason in that is showing where metaphysics start to be nonsense. By pure reason, Logic/math/geometry. Reason is also of will. (aka emotions) But not pure.

And by The Understanding. He means the concepts in which physical experience is understood by. aka That principle which that operating system, by which physical sense-data is processes in to meaningfull experience aka non-random physical experiences, object. ets.
enabling to have non-random.

physical information:

Modern langauge: Sense data
kant language: manifolds

Intuition:
Modern langauge: immediate emotional sensation.
Kant langauge: immediate physical sensation.

The Understanding:
Modern language: Usually refers to reasoning.
Kant language: Physical conceptualization.

Formal science(modern language)=Pure reason(Kant language)
There is so many translation to be made from Kant language to the modern understanding of the terms. That is what makes it so hard. Like 60% has to be translated to a modern version of terms used today. The very words that you know mean something completly different in Kant language.

1 major point he is making:

Is that Bad/irrational metaphysics is caused when Reason, (motivated/emotional +pure reason) uses concepts of the understanding. Particularly that of matter/substance(existence seperate from mind/consciousness; \modern language) which could never be of possible physical experience(empirical)
And therefore are nonsensical claims.

He is pretty much completly rejecting all of theology as making any sense, or being of rational claims of knowledge. In that its beyond possible human understanding. While at the same time trying to dodge being accused of going against the church. He called those things The Numina.
But that we could never know about their nature. He is kind of like you where he is saying Religion can only be Faith Based. But never of Reason. (but he sounds like a Closet Athiest like Hume.) Remember if you are an open Athiest at the time, then NO PUBLISH and No career.

So this is only about what information and processing is available to do any sort of rational metaphysics.. If you get this, that is one of the major points. I can't tell how obscure I am speaking because the meanings are way more intuitive to me, then others. I could never tell, and I think that plays an aculmalitive role in affecting how people misunderstand what I am saying.

The two major questions he answers is how is mathmatics possible? (this should have been first.)
and how is Natural Science possible?
I may make some post on all of it. But I have so many haters. When I try to do something grant, I get random attacks. By people basing thier knowledge internet/undergrade understanding of the material. Wnope being the first guy there.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 8:31:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 4:37:14 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 3:38:50 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:30:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:20:19 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:18:17 AM, YYW wrote:

The Fool: He is saying he can't make sense of The Critique of Pure reason..By Kant.

Just a rant I have been needing to get off of my chest for a while. The more I read of Kant the less I like him.

The Fool: Yes its like pulling teeth, I here. But ask me a question. from something you are confused with.

My problem is that my german is -though conversationally fluent- is academically insufficient. There is much that I understand, but much is left wanting. If you were to teach a single hour lecture on it though, how would you approach it. Where would you start? (Imagine the lecture is targeted for university sophomore and junior philosophy majors who have completed their 100 and some 200 levels). I know this is an absurd request, but that's my issue. That's what I'm trying to do.

Part one: On how and what is of the nature of Metaphysics V 1.1

The Fool: ha one hour.. First you have to understand that its old German. So you need a etymology dictionary. If its in english. You have to watch for errors in the translator because I would say most people don't grasp it properly. The Translater has to be as perfect in both languages and as smart as Kant. ANd he have be extremly good at rational philosophy. (Enlightment philosophy) Probably a rare species.

What he is doing, is weeding out what a science of metaphysics can even be of, to even be possible. And with that he is critiquing how much we could possibly know in metaphysics. And by metaphysics means that which we could know devoid of physical sense experience.

Its a critique of Pure reason in that is showing where metaphysics start to be nonsense. By pure reason, Logic/math/geometry. Reason is also of will. (aka emotions) But not pure.

And by The Understanding. He means the concepts in which physical experience is understood by. aka That principle which that operating system, by which physical sense-data is processes in to meaningfull experience aka non-random physical experiences, object. ets.
enabling to have non-random.

physical information:

Modern langauge: Sense data
kant language: manifolds

Intuition:
Modern langauge: immediate emotional sensation.
Kant langauge: immediate physical sensation.

The Understanding:
Modern language: Usually refers to reasoning.
Kant language: Physical conceptualization.

Formal science(modern language)=Pure reason(Kant language)
There is so many translation to be made from Kant language to the modern understanding of the terms. That is what makes it so hard. Like 60% has to be translated to a modern version of terms used today. The very words that you know mean something completly different in Kant language.

1 major point he is making:

Is that Bad/irrational metaphysics is caused when Reason, (motivated/emotional +pure reason) uses concepts of the understanding. Particularly that of matter/substance(existence seperate from mind/consciousness; \modern language) which could never be of possible physical experience(empirical)
And therefore are nonsensical claims.

He is pretty much completly rejecting all of theology as making any sense, or being of rational claims of knowledge. In that its beyond possible human understanding. While at the same time trying to dodge being accused of going against the church. He called those things The Numina.
But that we could never know about their nature. He is kind of like you where he is saying Religion can only be Faith Based. But never of Reason. (but he sounds like a Closet Athiest like Hume.) Remember if you are an open Athiest at the time, then NO PUBLISH and No career.

So this is only about what information and processing is available to do any sort of rational metaphysics.. If you get this, that is one of the major points. I can't tell how obscure I am speaking because the meanings are way more intuitive to me, then others. I could never tell, and I think that plays an aculmalitive role in affecting how people misunderstand what I am saying.

The two major questions he answers is how is mathmatics possible? (this should have been first.)
and how is Natural Science possible?
I may make some post on all of it. But I have so many haters. When I try to do something grant, I get random attacks. By people basing thier knowledge internet/undergrade understanding of the material. Wnope being the first guy there.

Some background into the request. I lost a bet with a dear friend. The terms were that I could teach Critique to his students more effectively then he could teach Rawls and Nozick. He is making the test to give to the students I am teaching. I am making the test to the students he is teaching. Neither of us get to see the tests that the students will be given. Whoever's average scores are higher buys drinks.

Per his terms, we are allowed to consult outside sources for our own benefit.

A curious gentlemen's wager, I suppose.

As such, I am eternally grateful for the outlines.
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 9:48:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Intuition:
Modern langauge: immediate emotional sensation.
Kant langauge: immediate physical sensation.

A correction: Kant does distinguish between sensible intuition(physical sensation)
and Pure intuition(intuition of pure reason)
and intuition in general. every other sensation.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 10:59:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 8:31:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/25/2012 4:37:14 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 3:38:50 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:30:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:20:19 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:18:17 AM, YYW wrote:

The Fool: He is saying he can't make sense of The Critique of Pure reason..By Kant.

Just a rant I have been needing to get off of my chest for a while. The more I read of Kant the less I like him.

The Fool: Yes its like pulling teeth, I here. But ask me a question. from something you are confused with.

My problem is that my german is -though conversationally fluent- is academically insufficient. There is much that I understand, but much is left wanting. If you were to teach a single hour lecture on it though, how would you approach it. Where would you start? (Imagine the lecture is targeted for university sophomore and junior philosophy majors who have completed their 100 and some 200 levels). I know this is an absurd request, but that's my issue. That's what I'm trying to do.

Part one: On how and what is of the nature of Metaphysics V 1.1

The Fool: ha one hour.. First you have to understand that its old German. So you need a etymology dictionary. If its in english. You have to watch for errors in the translator because I would say most people don't grasp it properly. The Translater has to be as perfect in both languages and as smart as Kant. ANd he have be extremly good at rational philosophy. (Enlightment philosophy) Probably a rare species.

What he is doing, is weeding out what a science of metaphysics can even be of, to even be possible. And with that he is critiquing how much we could possibly know in metaphysics. And by metaphysics means that which we could know devoid of physical sense experience.

Its a critique of Pure reason in that is showing where metaphysics start to be nonsense. By pure reason, Logic/math/geometry. Reason is also of will. (aka emotions) But not pure.

And by The Understanding. He means the concepts in which physical experience is understood by. aka That principle which that operating system, by which physical sense-data is processes in to meaningfull experience aka non-random physical experiences, object. ets.
enabling to have non-random.

physical information:

Modern langauge: Sense data
kant language: manifolds

Intuition:
Modern langauge: immediate emotional sensation.
Kant langauge: immediate physical sensation.

The Understanding:
Modern language: Usually refers to reasoning.
Kant language: Physical conceptualization.

Formal science(modern language)=Pure reason(Kant language)
There is so many translation to be made from Kant language to the modern understanding of the terms. That is what makes it so hard. Like 60% has to be translated to a modern version of terms used today. The very words that you know mean something completly different in Kant language.

1 major point he is making:

Is that Bad/irrational metaphysics is caused when Reason, (motivated/emotional +pure reason) uses concepts of the understanding. Particularly that of matter/substance(existence seperate from mind/consciousness; \modern language) which could never be of possible physical experience(empirical)
And therefore are nonsensical claims.

He is pretty much completly rejecting all of theology as making any sense, or being of rational claims of knowledge. In that its beyond possible human understanding. While at the same time trying to dodge being accused of going against the church. He called those things The Numina.
But that we could never know about their nature. He is kind of like you where he is saying Religion can only be Faith Based. But never of Reason. (but he sounds like a Closet Athiest like Hume.) Remember if you are an open Athiest at the time, then NO PUBLISH and No career.

So this is only about what information and processing is available to do any sort of rational metaphysics.. If you get this, that is one of the major points. I can't tell how obscure I am speaking because the meanings are way more intuitive to me, then others. I could never tell, and I think that plays an aculmalitive role in affecting how people misunderstand what I am saying.

The two major questions he answers is how is mathmatics possible? (this should have been first.)
and how is Natural Science possible?
I may make some post on all of it. But I have so many haters. When I try to do something grant, I get random attacks. By people basing thier knowledge internet/undergrade understanding of the material. Wnope being the first guy there.

Some background into the request. I lost a bet with a dear friend. The terms were that I could teach Critique to his students more effectively then he could teach Rawls and Nozick. He is making the test to give to the students I am teaching. I am making the test to the students he is teaching. Neither of us get to see the tests that the students will be given. Whoever's average scores are higher buys drinks.

Per his terms, we are allowed to consult outside sources for our own benefit.

A curious gentlemen's wager, I suppose.

As such, I am eternally grateful for the outlines.

Wow, talk about putting yourself at a disadvantage. Rawls and Nozick are like Dr. Seuss compared to Kant.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 11:12:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't know why any sane person with no Kant experience would dive into CPR. I haven't even read this in top level undergrad courses with a philosophy major - Metaphysics of Morals is more understandable although by no means a walk in the park. I've read enough philosophy to know that if you just dive into these dense texts 99/100 times you're not going to pick up some philosophical revelation...you're just going to come out confused and having wasted your time.

Also be careful who you get your second hand sources from, any BA in philosophy who claims to be confident in his knowledge of Kant I'd be suspect of, nevermind someone with no formal degrees.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 11:45:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 11:12:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I don't know why any sane person with no Kant experience would dive into CPR. I haven't even read this in top level undergrad courses with a philosophy major - Metaphysics of Morals is more understandable although by no means a walk in the park. I've read enough philosophy to know that if you just dive into these dense texts 99/100 times you're not going to pick up some philosophical revelation...you're just going to come out confused and having wasted your time.

Also be careful who you get your second hand sources from, any BA in philosophy who claims to be confident in his knowledge of Kant I'd be suspect of, nevermind someone with no formal degrees.

I majored in philosophy as an undergraduate (but the bulk of my classes were focused towards political/social philosophy rather than Kantian metaphysics). But yeah, JSTOR is the principle source of secondary sources (although I appreciate the input of everyone). There are also various lectures on iTunes U and academic earth.org that I have seen, but wasn't really impressed with. That being said, primary sources are where I prefer to pull from. The bet was absurd, but I didn't dictate the terms. Because I lost (details beyond that not relevant) this is what I'm doing.

As it were though, I have dealt with old war vets that have a better idea of what is being discussed then the professor or grad student teaching the course. Some people just get things, others do not. I enjoy the thoughts of anyone who is willing to educate themselves on a given subject, and (although I don't think you intended to suggest this) have no interest in discounting someone's thoughts only because Ph. D. doesn't follow their name. There are loads of stupid people with doctorates in the world. Most of them work in university English departments or business schools.
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 11:59:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 11:45:28 PM, YYW wrote:
There are loads of stupid people with doctorates in the world. Most of them work in university English departments

lol. I feel like English is such a waste of a class. The things you could do with that time.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 12:07:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 1:55:33 AM, YYW wrote:
To the extent that I invariably find myself tasked with this most extensive and lugubrious task of propagating the proliferation of a vast and diverse body of text that is quintessentially devoid of meaning, I undertake that effort here, now and presently.

Lmfao, nope.

Stopped there.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 12:08:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 11:59:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:45:28 PM, YYW wrote:
There are loads of stupid people with doctorates in the world. Most of them work in university English departments

lol. I feel like English is such a waste of a class. The things you could do with that time.

Like read, leading to greater knowledge?

Oh, wait...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 12:14:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 12:08:19 AM, Ren wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:59:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:45:28 PM, YYW wrote:
There are loads of stupid people with doctorates in the world. Most of them work in university English departments

lol. I feel like English is such a waste of a class. The things you could do with that time.

Like read, leading to greater knowledge?

Oh, wait...

lmao. Reading =/= greater knowledge...that's one of the most helpful things I learned before entering Highschool. Novels (especially the glorified "American Classics") are devoid of any educational value, and furthermore, they're boring. Great Gatsby for instance is one of the most meaningless stories I've ever read. We dissected the book to death with all the symbolism, foreshadowing, nuances, themes,...and the end it's one BIG WHOOP... ahh, novels are wretched creations.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 12:36:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 12:14:29 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/26/2012 12:08:19 AM, Ren wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:59:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:45:28 PM, YYW wrote:
There are loads of stupid people with doctorates in the world. Most of them work in university English departments

lol. I feel like English is such a waste of a class. The things you could do with that time.

Like read, leading to greater knowledge?

Oh, wait...

lmao. Reading =/= greater knowledge...that's one of the most helpful things I learned before entering Highschool. Novels (especially the glorified "American Classics") are devoid of any educational value, and furthermore, they're boring. Great Gatsby for instance is one of the most meaningless stories I've ever read. We dissected the book to death with all the symbolism, foreshadowing, nuances, themes,...and the end it's one BIG WHOOP... ahh, novels are wretched creations.

Hmmm...

Let's see... first, reading is one of the primary ways one acquires knowledge. The other two ways are direct experience and experimentation.

Then, there's the Highschool reading list of "American Classics" that were essentially amalgamated in like, the 60's and 70's by hyperconservatives that assumed all highschool students are highly impressionable retards that would get pregnant together the moment they read an expletive in an academic setting...

Then, there's the Great Gatsby, which was revered back when it first hit Highschool reading lists, because it was only a couple of decades away from the time about which it reminisced, which was fresh in every adult's mind. The poignancy and realism that it captured about the time was touching, I suppose. Now, like 50 years later, it's just some book about a time that we can hardly imagine. I think an updated analogue might be Rumble Fish, a peek into the harsher times kids and young adults experienced in the eighties, might sit better with today's youth.

However, you can thank the Cold War, which caused administrators of forego much of our liberal arts academic focus en lieue for more technical competencies, like science and math, for the lack of such an update. Nonetheless, these administrators still believe that you kids are ignorant retards, and thus, refuse to really teach you much in those subjects. Only the bare minimum, the mildest of overviews, so you're somewhat familiar with terms and basic operations when you're required to take real classes about them in college.

So, now, you're left with the Great Gatsby and science classes that leave high school students ignorant enough to learn more from casual conversations on this website.

In any case, I find it likely that someone with your intellect and taste in music will one day find an appreciation for the written art, as well.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 12:42:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Its all about Progressive Critical Philosophy.
And I am including science as a part of it. <(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 1:08:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 12:14:29 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/26/2012 12:08:19 AM, Ren wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:59:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:45:28 PM, YYW wrote:
There are loads of stupid people with doctorates in the world. Most of them work in university English departments

lol. I feel like English is such a waste of a class. The things you could do with that time.

Like read, leading to greater knowledge?

Oh, wait...

lmao. Reading =/= greater knowledge...that's one of the most helpful things I learned before entering Highschool. Novels (especially the glorified "American Classics") are devoid of any educational value, and furthermore, they're boring. Great Gatsby for instance is one of the most meaningless stories I've ever read. We dissected the book to death with all the symbolism, foreshadowing, nuances, themes,...and the end it's one BIG WHOOP... ahh, novels are wretched creations.

The great tragedy is that a bulk of students graduating from both high school and college have written off literature because of their experience in english classes. It's quite a shame, really is. Notice what I said though: stupid Ph. D.'s occupy space in university english departments. That does not mean that english is stupid or that literature is devoid of intellectual/educational value. Quite the opposite.

The problem is that english departments admit more failed authors to MFA or Ph.D. programs in english literature then they admit individuals who -per chance- actually want to teach. The effect is that a bunch of whiny marxists and feminists sit around at faculty meetings and b!tch about over wether Michele Foucault or Jean Paul Sarte was the more under rated genius (many of them never having even picked up a substantial work of either).

High school i.e. even worse. There are literature textbooks, filled with excerpts of the western cannon, and there are books that are taught like dead corpses to be dissected. Students are taught to memorize and regurgitate the intellectually bastardized ramblings of some git who works for McGraw hill, all the while learning to connote the very activity of reading words on a page with all sorts of foul images (like their fat, old and stupid English teachers/professors). I hated english in high school. Loved it in college though, but only because I was savvy to avoid bad professors. In high school, one does not enjoy such flexibility (usually).

But stories, the good ones anyway, tell us something about ourselves as people and sometimes the society in which we life. They explore nuances of life that are often too difficult to talk about (this should not be confused with shock-and-awe horse sh!t like the Kite Runner, and equally obscene ramblings). Reading should be pleasurable, though. It should be educational and engaging. Classes have the peculiar tendency to kill that.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 1:09:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 12:07:36 AM, Ren wrote:
At 7/25/2012 1:55:33 AM, YYW wrote:
To the extent that I invariably find myself tasked with this most extensive and lugubrious task of propagating the proliferation of a vast and diverse body of text that is quintessentially devoid of meaning, I undertake that effort here, now and presently.

Lmfao, nope.

Stopped there.

lol
Tsar of DDO
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 1:22:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
To the extent that I invariably find myself tasked with this most extensive and lugubrious task of propagating the proliferation of a vast and diverse body of text that is quintessentially devoid of meaning, I undertake that effort here, now and presently. As a reader you will be wise to take diligent notice to observe that in addition to the overwhelmingly overwritten character of these extensively long sentences there is both an observable and demonstrable lack of recognizable or coherent substance. The choice of diction is plausibly and ostensibly intentional, for it both has the effect of showcasing my finely tuned command of the English language by the lexical over expansion of all that which I should doubtlessly endeavor to say and it highlights what will be purposeful demonstration of the experience of reading the vast and numerous works of one specific and widely celebrated continental philosophers who is widely regarded as having conjured the most pristinely exquisite philosophical moral system ever written. But, invariably from those among us who were accosted by undergraduate professors of character as draconian as they are deranged an account of the experience of Critique of Pure Reason is most appropriately recorded in much the same ongoing and extensively nonsensical writing style of that bombastically hyperbolic and excessive wordsmith and philosopher known as Immanuel Kant. It should be noted that in this note I shall in addition to making no effort whatsoever to inventing anything new or original of my own volition (such as was the case with the aforementioned philosopher's moral system, which in due regard can sufficiently trace the bulk of its roots to the religious traditions which said aforementioned philosopher claimed to subscribe to), but rather convolute and muddle every idea that I am capable of transcribing in such a way as to conspicuously obscure its conception from any cognitively lucid person who may be so unfortunate as to attempt to decipher that which I am presently advocating for. In that rite if successful I will marry in prose the pointless futility of James Joyce with the over worded nonsense of the previously mentioned thinker who I above devote an extensively lengthy portion of text to criticizing, with the expressed purpose of, aside from saying nothing coherent whatsoever, mimicking the effect of what it is like to read Critique if one is not capable of following both the unnecessary and elaborate cognitive gymnastics required to tread that most encumbering intellectual quicksand that even a single sentence of the aforementioned author's prose so inexcusably resembles. As such, I hope but doubt that this has been in any sense a beneficial use of your time or mine and for that reason I will occasion myself to spare us both the tediousness and insanity of continuing further. If only Kant had been so considerate...

I will never be able to fit this in a sig... suicide is the only path for me now. I must end the madness.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 1:26:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 1:22:42 AM, MouthWash wrote:
To the extent that I invariably find myself tasked with this most extensive and lugubrious task of propagating the proliferation of a vast and diverse body of text that is quintessentially devoid of meaning, I undertake that effort here, now and presently. As a reader you will be wise to take diligent notice to observe that in addition to the overwhelmingly overwritten character of these extensively long sentences there is both an observable and demonstrable lack of recognizable or coherent substance. The choice of diction is plausibly and ostensibly intentional, for it both has the effect of showcasing my finely tuned command of the English language by the lexical over expansion of all that which I should doubtlessly endeavor to say and it highlights what will be purposeful demonstration of the experience of reading the vast and numerous works of one specific and widely celebrated continental philosophers who is widely regarded as having conjured the most pristinely exquisite philosophical moral system ever written. But, invariably from those among us who were accosted by undergraduate professors of character as draconian as they are deranged an account of the experience of Critique of Pure Reason is most appropriately recorded in much the same ongoing and extensively nonsensical writing style of that bombastically hyperbolic and excessive wordsmith and philosopher known as Immanuel Kant. It should be noted that in this note I shall in addition to making no effort whatsoever to inventing anything new or original of my own volition (such as was the case with the aforementioned philosopher's moral system, which in due regard can sufficiently trace the bulk of its roots to the religious traditions which said aforementioned philosopher claimed to subscribe to), but rather convolute and muddle every idea that I am capable of transcribing in such a way as to conspicuously obscure its conception from any cognitively lucid person who may be so unfortunate as to attempt to decipher that which I am presently advocating for. In that rite if successful I will marry in prose the pointless futility of James Joyce with the over worded nonsense of the previously mentioned thinker who I above devote an extensively lengthy portion of text to criticizing, with the expressed purpose of, aside from saying nothing coherent whatsoever, mimicking the effect of what it is like to read Critique if one is not capable of following both the unnecessary and elaborate cognitive gymnastics required to tread that most encumbering intellectual quicksand that even a single sentence of the aforementioned author's prose so inexcusably resembles. As such, I hope but doubt that this has been in any sense a beneficial use of your time or mine and for that reason I will occasion myself to spare us both the tediousness and insanity of continuing further. If only Kant had been so considerate...

I will never be able to fit this in a sig... suicide is the only path for me now. I must end the madness.

This from the fellow who questioned wether or not gays should have the right to live.

But it is funny what can be done with a command of the english language as fine tuned as Faulkner and a love of chaos as consuming as Loki.
Tsar of DDO
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 1:33:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 1:26:57 AM, YYW wrote
This from the fellow who questioned wether or not gays should have the right to live.

I hope you realize I was making a point about the extremely tolerant site policy?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 1:35:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 1:33:17 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 7/26/2012 1:26:57 AM, YYW wrote
This from the fellow who questioned wether or not gays should have the right to live.

I hope you realize I was making a point about the extremely tolerant site policy?

I knew it was a joke, lol. If I thought you were serious I would have asked you if you were implying a confession of something... perhaps my sense of humor is a bit off kilter tonight though. I've been awake a LONG time.
Tsar of DDO