What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[Ginkgo]

Hello chaz,


Yes, very true.

[chaz wyman]

Hello chaz,


Yes, very true.

Kant can be quite a jargon-fest and he is not without his critics, many declaring that the distinction between synthetic and analytic is false or overwrought.

[Arising_uk]

You seem to be dense, as you were doing great until the line "Clearer for you?" ...

Fuckin' 'ell! How fragile are you! Would "Does this make more sense to you?" make you happier?

You must be a nightmare to know as you are on a hair-trigger to find offence at the drop of a hat.

I really think you should read Grinder and Bandlers books, they may give you more of an insight than all the selective shrinkery you say you've been doing.

You see, you seem to not be as smart as you propose. ...

This is your insecurity talking as I do not say I am smart.

While you dismiss emotional content as being irrelevant, you use EMOTIcons, argue as to your colourful rag being better than another's colourful rag, spout your so called credentials (pieces of paper) as if they really matter, and say things such as I've quoted above. ...

I do not say it is irrelevant. I say it should be in harmony with ones words and thoughts, not in control of them.

I use emoticons as they are, at times, the tool for the job.

I couldn't give a fart about our flag. I just respond to obvious jingoism with its reflection.

I only spout my credentials, which if you note I call my 'bits of paper', when I am challenged about them or when I know it will wind-up others who wish to portray me as uneducated and ill-informed. Otherwise I know them for what they are, the conclusion of my interests and at the time they mattered to me.

It would seem you are an emotional train wreck, not understanding what emotions are, or how they're conveyed. I guess that's what you get, when you believe in magical books, and fear the nasty dictionary vortex. ...

I think I use them effectively. You on the other hand appear to be an emotional synaesthete with respect to writing with little awareness of it. You also appear unable to understand my discussion about meaning and language with respect to dictionaries and have yet to answer the question, "Do you believe that there was no meaning in the English language before Johnson wrote his dictionary?"

The rest of your message goes unread, because you act like a fool. Clean up you act and maybe we'll talk, I've grown tired of your seemingly, selfish, confused, inconsistent, hypocrisy. ...

Piss off you pompous prig.

Remember that all of what I've said to you, was aimed directly at you, and no one else, so you can stop trying to elicit their support, coward! ...

What are you burbling about now!?

You would be fun in the sporting ring, no matter what the rules.

Can I bring my longsword?

Unlike you I don't find fighting 'fun' and have a healthy cowardice for my physical well-being but from what you say you think that your self-proclaimed martial skills will allow you to hurt me, for 'fun', without me being able to get to grips with you. Maybe, maybe not, but if I thought this the case and had no option but to fight then I'd probably just stab you outside the changing room, as I guess you are the kind of stupid who would enjoy indulging in some face-to-face verbal.

<snip>

How dramatically convenient for you.

[Ginkgo]

Hello chaz,


Yes, very true.

Kant can be quite a jargon-fest and he is not without his critics, many declaring that the distinction between synthetic and analytic is false or overwrought.

As you say, it is subject to much criticism and for very good reasons.

The analytic and synthetic distinction that Kant makes relates largely to apriori propositions. Analytic being the ability to find the truth value of propositions contained within the terms of the proposition; no experience necessary. This was the point Hume was making in relation to mathematical propositions. They are analytic apriori truths. They cannot be false. A synthetic truth would be, 'This apple is green'. This may be true at the moment, but it may not be false in a weeks time.

Now this is where it gets a bit tricky. One might think that a synthetic apriori proposition necessarily involves looking at a proposition that is not strictly logical and not strictly empirical in order to determine its truth value. This is largely true, but not exactly correct because the truth value of such propositions cannot be found by analyzing the concepts involved. Or, so says Kant.

[chaz wyman]

Hello chaz,


Yes, very true.

Kant can be quite a jargon-fest and he is not without his critics, many declaring that the distinction between synthetic and analytic is false or overwrought.

As you say, it is subject to much criticism and for very good reasons.

The analytic and synthetic distinction that Kant makes relates largely to apriori propositions. Analytic being the ability to find the truth value of propositions contained within the terms of the proposition; no experience necessary. This was the point Hume was making in relation to mathematical propositions. They are analytic apriori truths. They cannot be false. A synthetic truth would be, 'This apple is green'. This may be true at the moment, but it may not be false in a weeks time.

And the problem here could be argued is that as all knowledge has to have ultimately deroved from experience, then the analytic is actually synthetic.

[reasonvemotion]

Kant


If the reader wishes to contribute towards making this footpath a highroad, it may not be possible to achieve, what so many centuries have not been able to accomplish; namely
to give complete satisfaction to human reason with regard to those questions which have in all ages, though hitherto in vain, engaged its desire for knowledge.

[Ginkgo]

Kant


If the reader wishes to contribute towards making this footpath a highroad, it may not be possible to achieve, what so many centuries have not been able to accomplish; namely
to give complete satisfaction to human reason with regard to those questions which have in all ages, though hitherto in vain, engaged its desire for knowledge.

Reason, that is a fantastic quote. Where did you get it?

[reasonvemotion]

Critique of Pure Reason


If the reader wishes to contribute towards making this footpath a highroad, it may not be possible to achieve, what so many centuries have not been able to accomplish; namely
to give complete satisfaction to human reason with regard to those questions which have in all ages, though hitherto in vain, engaged its desire for knowledge

I admire Kant

[SpheresOfBalance]

You seem to be dense, as you were doing great until the line "Clearer for you?" ...

Fuckin' 'ell! How fragile are you! Would "Does this make more sense to you?" make you happier?

You must be a nightmare to know as you are on a hair-trigger to find offence at the drop of a hat.

I really think you should read Grinder and Bandlers books, they may give you more of an insight than all the selective shrinkery you say you've been doing.
You're such a fool, the comment was pointed at you, not me. You're such an egotistical ****.

You see, you seem to not be as smart as you propose. ...

This is your insecurity talking as I do not say I am smart.
Credential spouting, as to your RIGHT to judge, idiot!

While you dismiss emotional content as being irrelevant, you use EMOTIcons, argue as to your colourful rag being better than another's colourful rag, spout your so called credentials (pieces of paper) as if they really matter, and say things such as I've quoted above. ...

I do not say it is irrelevant. I say it should be in harmony with ones words and thoughts, not in control of them.
Who are you to say what it should be, you're just one of 7 billion! See first point, above for your lack of control.


I use emoticons as they are, at times, the tool for the job.
Yes, to display your emotions in a philosophy forum.

I couldn't give a fart about our flag. I just respond to obvious jingoism with its reflection.
Riiiiiight!!!!! Arguing that shit bears great reflection... I see that you can't be a philosopher, because your perspective is from such a small arena.

I only spout my credentials, which if you note I call my 'bits of paper', when I am challenged about them or when I know it will wind-up others who wish to portray me as uneducated and ill-informed. Otherwise I know them for what they are, the conclusion of my interests and at the time they mattered to me.
Bullshit, tell that to Godfree.

It would seem you are an emotional train wreck, not understanding what emotions are, or how they're conveyed. I guess that's what you get, when you believe in magical books, and fear the nasty dictionary vortex. ...

I think I use them effectively. You on the other hand appear to be an emotional synaesthete with respect to writing with little awareness of it. You also appear unable to understand my discussion about meaning and language with respect to dictionaries and have yet to answer the question, "Do you believe that there was no meaning in the English language before Johnson wrote his dictionary?"
Are you having problems with your memory? I believe you need to go back to the beginning of the dictionary argument, as you're blowing it.

The rest of your message goes unread, because you act like a fool. Clean up you act and maybe we'll talk, I've grown tired of your seemingly, selfish, confused, inconsistent, hypocrisy. ...

Piss off you pompous prig.
Ditto, look in the mirror!

Remember that all of what I've said to you, was aimed directly at you, and no one else, so you can stop trying to elicit their support, coward! ...

What are you burbling about now!?
It's funny how everything above your head is burbling or psycho babble, you're the problem, fool.

You would be fun in the sporting ring, no matter what the rules.

Can I bring my longsword?
Sure, can I bring my Nuke? That surely puts things in perspective, doesn't it? Ahhhh, forget it, no doubt it's yet another thing in your stratosphere.

Unlike you I don't find fighting 'fun' and have a healthy cowardice for my physical well-being but from what you say you think that your self-proclaimed martial skills will allow you to hurt me, for 'fun', without me being able to get to grips with you.
Not at all, it'll just silence your disrespectful gaping orifice.

Maybe, maybe not, but if I thought this the case and had no option but to fight then I'd probably just stab you outside the changing room, as I guess you are the kind of stupid who would enjoy indulging in some face-to-face verbal.
It's virtually impossible to catch me off guard, sonny boy. You actually think I'd take my senses off you for a second? ha ha ha You'd never get the chance to back stab, pussy! I'd take it out of your grasp and slap you on the ass with it. Humiliate you with your own weapon. Of course that will only add to the humiliation of bringing a weapon in the first place.

<snip>

How dramatically convenient for you.
Or so you'd like to believe. There goes the ego again.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Kant


If the reader wishes to contribute towards making this footpath a highroad, it may not be possible to achieve, what so many centuries have not been able to accomplish; namely
to give complete satisfaction to human reason with regard to those questions which have in all ages, though hitherto in vain, engaged its desire for knowledge.

Flawed with regard to truth. First, it's loaded with egoism, softened a little with the inclusion of 'many centuries.' Second, impossible assertion as to the possibility of achievement, though softened a bit, with the inclusion of 'may.' The softening technique is used to lend credibility and to buffer against calling ones ego into question.

[Arising_uk]

You're such a fool, the comment was pointed at you, not me. You're such an egotistical ****.

I think it clear who has the ego here lad.
Care to ever comment on the actual points.

Credential spouting, as to your RIGHT to judge, idiot!

When asked why I think I have the right to discuss something I think having studied the subject has bearing upon the issue. That you are so insecure about academic qualifications shows your issues.

Who are you to say what it should be, you're just one of 7 billion! See first point, above for your lack of control.

What matter the 7 billion? But you're right, 'should' is the wrong word. "Could" is better but I doubt you could ever achieve such a balance.

Yes, to display your emotions in a philosophy forum.

So? As they are not in control of my thoughts as they so obviously are in yours.

Riiiiiight!!!!! Arguing that shit bears great reflection... I see that you can't be a philosopher, because your perspective is from such a small arena.

Given that you've pretty much not read nor studied any philosophers I think your perspective of little bearing.

Bullshit, tell that to Godfree.

I talked with godfree for many posts until he challenged my right to say such things, so I told him.

Are you having problems with your memory? I believe you need to go back to the beginning of the dictionary argument, as you're blowing it.

Am I? Will you ever reply to my question?

Ditto, look in the mirror!

No need for the ditto.

It's funny how everything above your head is burbling or psycho babble, you're the problem, fool.

Glad you find it funny. But just for you, where was I appealing to others? Its why I think you burble.

Sure, can I bring my Nuke? That surely puts things in perspective, doesn't it? Ahhhh, forget it, no doubt it's yet another thing in your stratosphere.

Do you have one?

Not at all, it'll just silence your disrespectful gaping orifice.

Nah! As the pen is mighty than the sword in many cases.

It's virtually impossible to catch me off guard, sonny boy. You actually think I'd take my senses off you for a second? ha ha ha You'd never get the chance to back stab, pussy! I'd take it out of your grasp and slap you on the ass with it. Humiliate you with your own weapon. Of course that will only add to the humiliation of bringing a weapon in the first place.

"It's virtually impossible to catch me off guard" and there we have it from the horses mouth.

But at the "I'd take it out of your grasp and slap you on the ass with it." as you've been watching to many films. It would not be a "back stab", much easier to the stomach and side when the egotistical numbnut has been wound-up enough to have a head-to-head verbal, which you clearly would as I bet you like the 'psyche' phase of 'fighting'.

Or so you'd like to believe. There goes the ego again.

You're the loon who wrote <snip>.

[MJA]

Kant


If the reader wishes to contribute towards making this footpath a highroad, it may not be possible to achieve, what so many centuries have not been able to accomplish; namely
to give complete satisfaction to human reason with regard to those questions which have in all ages, though hitherto in vain, engaged its desire for knowledge.

Poor Kant,
Truth satisfies me.

=

[SpheresOfBalance]

You're such a fool, the comment was pointed at you, not me. You're such an egotistical ****.

I think it clear who has the ego here lad.
Apparently you failed to see how your response was indicative of such.

Care to ever comment on the actual points.
I don't necessarily follow anyone's lead.

Credential spouting, as to your RIGHT to judge, idiot!

When asked why I think I have the right to discuss something I think having studied the subject has bearing upon the issue. That you are so insecure about academic qualifications shows your issues.
Not at all, just the facts, philosophy if not necessarily contained in any particular book, actually philosophy is everywhere, for those, of a discerning minds eye.

Who are you to say what it should be, you're just one of 7 billion! See first point, above for your lack of control.

What matter the 7 billion? But you're right, 'should' is the wrong word. "Could" is better but I doubt you could ever achieve such a balance.
The truth, does not, your doubt, make.

Yes, to display your emotions in a philosophy forum.

So? As they are not in control of my thoughts as they so obviously are in yours.
I've seen you only ever use emoticons to try and hurt people; negative reinforcement, while I, unless antagonized, only use them as positive reinforcement. So BS, you display your emotional need to hurt people, with every usage, and it's obviously in control.

Riiiiiight!!!!! Arguing that shit bears great reflection... I see that you can't be a philosopher, because your perspective is from such a small arena.

Given that you've pretty much not read nor studied any philosophers I think your perspective of little bearing.
Not True! But it doesn't really matter, because I choose not to merely talk of others accomplishments.

Bullshit, tell that to Godfree.

I talked with godfree for many posts until he challenged my right to say such things, so I told him.
Not at all, here it is:

Yes I thought so , you are on my thread to try and discourage me ,
to suggest that it's not scientific or proper philosophy that I present ,
like your the authority here , and an expert on these subjects ,
is your name AMod ,??? or where do you get the idea that your the judge ,, ...

A fucking BA(Hons) Degree in Philosophy and a MSc degree in AI is where I get my arrogance to judge you dipshit! Where do you get yours?

So Arising , are you agnostic , or religious , and could this be why ,
you just attempt to undermine everything I post , cos I'm god free ,
your thread , Do you believe that we have a soul , as in spirit , ghost ,
or since the thread failed to generate any interest,
tell me here , are you a christian , seeking the "proof" the maths ,??
your using science to try and prove religion,,???
and you think I'm confused ,,???

I think you the most confused dipshit I've chatted to on this forum for a long time. And that is saying something.

No, what you said is definitely incorrect, you did not have a right to.

Are you having problems with your memory? I believe you need to go back to the beginning of the dictionary argument, as you're blowing it.

Am I? Will you ever reply to my question?
Yes you are. You've asked many, I don't know to which you refer, but even if so, it would not necessarily, necessitate my response.

Ditto, look in the mirror!

No need for the ditto.
Who knows, maybe a prefer redundancy, for the thick headed, but it matters not, as your point is that of a looser.

It's funny how everything above your head is burbling or psycho babble, you're the problem, fool.

Glad you find it funny. But just for you, where was I appealing to others? Its why I think you burble.
I see that every time you have alluded to my psycho babble and burbling, it's because my point was over your head, it's that simple.

Sure, can I bring my Nuke? That surely puts things in perspective, doesn't it? Ahhhh, forget it, no doubt it's yet another thing in your stratosphere.

Do you have one?
This is an example of my previous, I'm surprised you didn't refer to it as burbling. Oh I see, it's obvious, this one actually had 'a' meaning that you were actually capable of discerning, something easy, found in the literal meaning

Not at all, it'll just silence your disrespectful gaping orifice.

Nah! As the pen is mighty than the sword in many cases.
Not at all, as it would most certainly silence your nastiness.

I'd bet my bottom dollar on a nuke over your mere pen any day!. And while this is unfair, even lesser swords are mightier than a pen, unless it's a really sharp pen.

It's virtually impossible to catch me off guard, sonny boy. You actually think I'd take my senses off you for a second? ha ha ha You'd never get the chance to back stab, pussy! I'd take it out of your grasp and slap you on the ass with it. Humiliate you with your own weapon. Of course that will only add to the humiliation of bringing a weapon in the first place.

"It's virtually impossible to catch me off guard" and there we have it from the horses mouth. You see merely a reflection of yourself, I'm sure!

But at the "I'd take it out of your grasp and slap you on the ass with it." as you've been watching to many films.
Not at all, remember that I was on a talk show of the 60's, not because I was bad at it.

It would not be a "back stab",
Only thing you could muster against me.

much easier to the stomach and side when the egotistical numbnut has been wound-up enough to have a head-to-head verbal, which you clearly would as I bet you like the 'psyche' phase of 'fighting'. I don't like fighting at all, which is probably why I'm so good at it.

Or so you'd like to believe. There goes the ego again.

You're the loon who wrote <snip>.
One of your many preconceptions that are wrong.

[chaz wyman]

Kant


If the reader wishes to contribute towards making this footpath a highroad, it may not be possible to achieve, what so many centuries have not been able to accomplish; namely
to give complete satisfaction to human reason with regard to those questions which have in all ages, though hitherto in vain, engaged its desire for knowledge.

Poor Kant,
Truth satisfies me.

=

As if any person who read your response during the next million years would think you brighter than Kant.

You would not know it if it hit you in the face like a wet fish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCwLirQS2-o

[Arising_uk]

Apparently you failed to see how your response was indicative of such.

Indicative of what? All I asked was if my explanation was clearer to you? You then said this is where I failed in some sense. I then asked if saying "Does this make more sense to you" make more sense and you called me a ****. Now you keep saying I failed to understand something that you meant but apparently can't just say what you meant!?

I don't necessarily follow anyone's lead.

Which is why we end up with this nonsense all the time. As I'm not asking you to follow, just participate in a discussion but your insecurities keep leading you to look for traps and slights.

Not at all, just the facts, philosophy if not necessarily contained in any particular book, actually philosophy is everywhere, for those, of a discerning minds eye.

No-one said it is but Philosophy is a subject and as such there are a canon of books that make it up, so it'd be nice if those who wish to philosophize had actually read them. As they might find that their discerning minds eye has already been discerned by other very bright discerners. The reason why philosophy is everywhere is that in the main its about sceptical, critical and logical thinking and as such all subjects are open to it.

The truth, does not, your doubt, make.

Show me wrong then.

I've seen you only ever use emoticons to try and hurt people; negative reinforcement, while I, unless antagonized, only use them as positive reinforcement. So BS, you display your emotional need to hurt people, with every usage, and it's obviously in control.

Its in controlled usage yes, if they get 'hurt' then they are fragile minds who should not be on a philosophy forum but in a psychology one. However I defy you to find any post of mine where I use such things where the recipient has not been the aggressor. You on the other hand talk a good story but are very quick to be the patronizing aggressor. You have endlessly cast hurtful slurs upon me when you thought I was a women, used very foul language to deride me and dismissed me by not answering pretty much any fucking question I ask you or discussing any opinion I put forth in answer to a question you raise. All, I think, because you are an insecure individual despite all the machismo bluster.

Not True! But it doesn't really matter, because I choose not to merely talk of others accomplishments.

I'm not asking you to talk about others achievements. Just not to ignore the history of philosophy and repeat it when its been done.

Not at all, here it is: ...
No, what you said is definitely incorrect, you did not have a right to.

You conveniently ignore the twenty plus posts that went before this moment. So I still stand by my right to reply in this manner.

If I understand you right you appear to be supporting godfree in his assertions that the BBT is a plot by politicians, scientists and religious to promote the idea of a 'god'. That he, with no training in Physics, Mathematics nor Cosmology has identified a flaw in the theories of the Cosmologists that they have not recognized, a flaw that he identifies by reading not the papers that they write but popular explanations of such papers!? For someone who ascribes science as the tool for truth you have a strange way of promoting it.

Yes you are. You've asked many, I don't know to which you refer, but even if so, it would not necessarily, necessitate my response.

Try answering them as they come up then. What point you on a philosophy forum if you cannot reply to questions? You just here to polemicize your view then?

Who knows, maybe a prefer redundancy, for the thick headed, but it matters not, as your point is that of a looser.

Thats Mr Loser to you numbnuts.

I see that every time you have alluded to my psycho babble and burbling, it's because my point was over your head, it's that simple.

If you made your point simple then it'd not be over my head. Its that you think others can mind-read in the way you think you can that's the issue.

This is an example of my previous, I'm surprised you didn't refer to it as burbling. Oh I see, it's obvious, this one actually had 'a' meaning that you were actually capable of discerning, something easy, found in the literal meaning

To paraphrase Wittgenstein, 'If a thing can be said then it can be said clearly'.

Not at all, as it would most certainly silence your nastiness.

What would stop yours? Pretty much the only nasty thing I've done to you was to state an opinion upon a question you posed or question a thought you've had. Then you reply from your 'no-one can get one over on me' position, generally in a confrontational way, and I'm not one to allow the bully such license.

I'd bet my bottom dollar on a nuke over your mere pen any day!. And while this is unfair, even lesser swords are mightier than a pen, unless it's a really sharp pen.

And you call me destructive! Marx from the reading room of the British Library changed the world more than a million nukes could do. Bill Hicks pointed out that with all the nukes you had Russia changed not but a book scared them more than anything else so you should be building bigger and better books.

You see merely a reflection of yourself, I'm sure!

As sure as your gender intuition?

Not at all, remember that I was on a talk show of the 60's, not because I was bad at it.

'Boards don't fight back', remember that? But so what. I've meet Sifus and Senseis and not one has ever said, or been as arrogant to say, that against an edged weapon they'd just take it from the person and slap their arse with it. All when asked what to do against an edged weapon if unarmed have recommend running if possible, if not find a weapon too, as a last resort try your techniques but you're probably going to get hurt. Unless of course the person is a complete numbnut and is waving it about and has no clue how to use it. But in reality those who use knives in a fight don't let you know they have one and the first time you'll know about it is when you've been stabbed a couple of time. If they do know how to use it, e.g. the Philippinos then you are truly in the shit. Just about the best teacher in such stuff is Senshidos Richard Dimitri and even he says he'd be lucky to walk away without serious damage and recommends if you managed to stop the first attack then run.

Only thing you could muster against me.

You'd still have lost the 'fight'.

I don't like fighting at all, which is probably why I'm so good at it.

I hate fighting which is why, when I do it, I don't fight fair but to win. My guess is that you've got into lots of fights.

One of your many preconceptions that are wrong.

About what!? That you're egotistical enough to actually write <snip> when you could just not write anything in reply?