Kant and the Thing in Itself

[Philosophy Now]

Ralph Blumenau on why things may not be what they seem to be.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/31/Kant ... _in_Itself

[HexHammer]

Before Kant, philosophers had divided propositions into two kinds, under the technical names of ‘analytic’ and ‘synthetic’. Propositions must be either the one or the other. Analytic propositions follow up the implications of definitions. If we designate the number of asterisks in *** as ‘3’, the number in ** as ‘2’, the number in ***** as ‘5’, and the symbol for addition as ‘+’, then it must be true that 3 + 2 = 5. If we use the word ‘man’ for the male of the human species and the word ‘father’ for the male progenitor of a child, then it must be true that ‘fathers are men’.

This is very tragic to watch:
1) a transgender from woman to man, be declared as a legal man, thus the father isn't nessesarily a 100% biologically a man. This proves that condensing life into math is very difficult, when there's often very subjective and relative parameters that delude the mathematical truth.

2) only idiots would waste time on Kant.

[WanderingLands]

This is very tragic to watch:
1) a transgender from woman to man, be declared as a legal man, thus the father isn't nessesarily a 100% biologically a man. This proves that condensing life into math is very difficult, when there's often very subjective and relative parameters that delude the mathematical truth.

I think you need to read the entire article instead of the excerpt, because it's mainly about the 'thing in-itself' and not so much about mathematics. The '3 + 2 = 5' was simply an example of analytic propositions, as the article had said.

http://www.academia.edu/211479/Kant_and ... -in-itself

2) only idiots would waste time on Kant.

Can you explain why your thesis against Kant?

[HexHammer]

To elaborate on my 2nd point.

Kant can in no way compare to modern science, everything is outdated and at most times too hard to understand the true meaning is his babble.
Too many naïve cozy chatters are deluded by his beautiful rethorics, and actually thinks he says anything relevant, when it has NO relevance in a modern society where science has out done him by far in every aspect. One has to be very very stupid.

[WanderingLands]

To elaborate on my 2nd point.

Kant can in no way compare to modern science, everything is outdated and at most times too hard to understand the true meaning is his babble.
Too many naïve cozy chatters are deluded by his beautiful rethorics, and actually thinks he says anything relevant, when it has NO relevance in a modern society where science has out done him by far in every aspect. One has to be very very stupid.

I believe that if you can at least read some articles on Kant, that you might find something intriguing about his philosophy, especially since he, like many other philosophers, have many years tackled on the big metaphysical questions of being, essence, existence, and so forth. But anyway, since you've made a claim against Kant, perhaps you should outline your reasons of why he doesn't compare with modern science, or why his ideas and philosophy is outdated.

[lancek4]

MH seems to throw around this term 'babble'. I would like to hear him explain in specific reference to Kant what exactly denotes his babble . What are you understanding of Kant that then makes sense to you that what he is saying is babble ? Because I could just as easily and carelessly say that what MH says is crap.

[Blaggard]

I would imagine I have read more about Kant than Hex has. All I can reasonably opine myself is that his moral system had some very good points, but was flawed in some ways. And that his experimental approach was a good launching point for modern science at least as it pertains to physics and especially quantum systems. I'd certainly not be so lazy to as opine on a philosopher I had merely skimmed at best comparative to the amount of literature he wrote, but then I am not Hex. I don't know everything by magic about everyone, without actually knowing much. You'd as sooner win the lottery without buying a ticket than get something meaningful out of Hex, but meh I am sure the effort is not entirely wasted on the lurkers. Don't worry he wont read this anyway so it's not really an ad hominem. although I'd debate that it was anyway as his argument techniques are fair game methinks. ie he doesn't have any, he just insults the entire medium in question with widely vague and unclear monologues that have no real adroitness, and then leans back in his arm chair and does nothing more despite careful prompting and correction. You've more chance of getting a concrete block to move by shouting at it than you have of getting Hex to budge from his ivory tower, let alone get a coherent and meaningful dialogue going. Hex sees all and knows all you see, you agree or you don't and are hence beneath consideration there is no third option. Someone at some point did explain this to Hex, which again begs the question why there is any point being somewhere where you aren't here to learn or refine anything, knowledge wise and certainly aren't here to have a meaningful discussion. I think he saw the sign for Demagoguery and the sign for Forum discussion and followed the wrong sign.

[HexHammer]

MH seems to throw around this term 'babble'. I would like to hear him explain in specific reference to Kant what exactly denotes his babble . What are you understanding of Kant that then makes sense to you that what he is saying is babble ? Because I could just as easily and carelessly say that what MH says is crap.

MH?
..what's MH?

[lancek4]

MH seems to throw around this term 'babble'. I would like to hear him explain in specific reference to Kant what exactly denotes his babble . What are you understanding of Kant that then makes sense to you that what he is saying is babble ? Because I could just as easily and carelessly say that what MH says is crap.

MH?
..what's MH?

HH. Can you offer more than your general opinion. Can you give specific items that then inform why you see him as blabber ?

I may be screaming at a cement block here, but can you support how or in what way modern science has moved do far beyond Kants ideas?

[lancek4]

I would imagine I have read more about Kant than Hex has. All I can reasonably opine myself is that his moral system had some very good points, but was flawed in some ways. And that his experimental approach was a good launching point for modern science at least as it pertains to physics and especially quantum systems. I'd certainly not be so lazy to as opine on a philosopher I had merely skimmed at best comparative to the amount of literature he wrote, but then I am not Hex. I don't know everything by magic about everyone, without actually knowing much. You'd as sooner win the lottery without buying a ticket than get something meaningful out of Hex, but meh I am sure the effort is not entirely wasted on the lurkers. Don't worry he wont read this anyway so it's not really an ad hominem. although I'd debate that it was anyway as his argument techniques are fair game methinks. ie he doesn't have any, he just insults the entire medium in question with widely vague and unclear monologues that have no real adroitness, and then leans back in his arm chair and does nothing more despite careful prompting and correction. You've more chance of getting a concrete block to move by shouting at it than you have of getting Hex to budge from his ivory tower, let alone get a coherent and meaningful dialogue going. Hex sees all and knows all you see, you agree or you don't and are hence beneath consideration there is no third option. Someone at some point did explain this to Hex, which again begs the question why there is any point being somewhere where you aren't here to learn or refine anything, knowledge wise and certainly aren't here to have a meaningful discussion. I think he saw the sign for Demagoguery and the sign for Forum discussion and followed the wrong sign.

Ah! Hahahaha lol. Yes. Sometimes I'm stubborn and continue to kick against the pricks .

Well. You seem to be more considerate philosophically minded (again, I don't want to ruin anyone's reputation). May I ask for your input on my essay over at "the significant event" topic?

[HexHammer]

MH seems to throw around this term 'babble'. I would like to hear him explain in specific reference to Kant what exactly denotes his babble . What are you understanding of Kant that then makes sense to you that what he is saying is babble ? Because I could just as easily and carelessly say that what MH says is crap.

MH?
..what's MH?

HH. Can you offer more than your general opinion. Can you give specific items that then inform why you see him as blabber ?

I may be screaming at a cement block here, but can you support how or in what way modern science has moved do far beyond Kants ideas?

I asked a VERY simple question, apparently you are a simpleton and can't answer such simple question, this is too tragic!

This begs the question, what kind of job does one such as you have?

[HexHammer]

To elaborate on my 2nd point.

Kant can in no way compare to modern science, everything is outdated and at most times too hard to understand the true meaning is his babble.
Too many naïve cozy chatters are deluded by his beautiful rethorics, and actually thinks he says anything relevant, when it has NO relevance in a modern society where science has out done him by far in every aspect. One has to be very very stupid.

I believe that if you can at least read some articles on Kant, that you might find something intriguing about his philosophy, especially since he, like many other philosophers, have many years tackled on the big metaphysical questions of being, essence, existence, and so forth. But anyway, since you've made a claim against Kant, perhaps you should outline your reasons of why he doesn't compare with modern science, or why his ideas and philosophy is outdated.

I've for many years tried to find just a tiiiiny bit of relevance in all his outdated babble.

..but ask yourself, why modern science doesn't waste time on him, or uses anything from him? ..because he only makes beautiful rethorical nonsense and babble that seduces too many cozy chatters that doesn't understand the concept of relevance.

Or you can post something that actually has relevance. Like "Plato's Cave" it's outdated, but it was the predecessor to the term "group think" and equal to the saying "cast pearls before swine".

[WanderingLands]

I've for many years tried to find just a tiiiiny bit of relevance in all his outdated babble.

..but ask yourself, why modern science doesn't waste time on him, or uses anything from him? ..because he only makes beautiful rethorical nonsense and babble that seduces too many cozy chatters that doesn't understand the concept of relevance.

Or you can post something that actually has relevance. Like "Plato's Cave" it's outdated, but it was the predecessor to the term "group think" and equal to the saying "cast pearls before swine".

I said that you should outline your reasons why you are against Kant. Your constant remarks against Kant and philosophy doesn't really explain why you think that it's 'outdated' in any way, shape or form.

[HexHammer]

I've for many years tried to find just a tiiiiny bit of relevance in all his outdated babble.

..but ask yourself, why modern science doesn't waste time on him, or uses anything from him? ..because he only makes beautiful rethorical nonsense and babble that seduces too many cozy chatters that doesn't understand the concept of relevance.

Or you can post something that actually has relevance. Like "Plato's Cave" it's outdated, but it was the predecessor to the term "group think" and equal to the saying "cast pearls before swine".

I said that you should outline your reasons why you are against Kant. Your constant remarks against Kant and philosophy doesn't really explain why you think that it's 'outdated' in any way, shape or form.

I just did, if you don't understand such simple reasoning it means there's something terrible wrong with you.

See this is a logically statement:

- if Kant actually did say something intelligent, modern science would use him for something.

- we still refer to Newton because he said things modern science can use for something, Kant didn't
- Pythagoras are still used today because his math hasn't changed, no one have come up with anything better than his simple lines.

[WanderingLands]

I just did, if you don't understand such simple reasoning it means there's something terrible wrong with you.

See this is a logically statement:

- if Kant actually did say something intelligent, modern science would use him for something.

- we still refer to Newton because he said things modern science can use for something, Kant didn't
- Pythagoras are still used today because his math hasn't changed, no one have come up with anything better than his simple lines.

I believe that there is more to life than just 'modern science', or simply finding things that have some pragmatic use. Science, or the secular form of it, does not address the questions that many people want answered; there are those who feel that sticking to dry science has not changed their personal conditions, let along societal conditions. That's why many go to philosophers like Kant and others - so they can see deeper meaning in life.