Kant and the Thing in Itself

[HexHammer]

e]How is grammar incompetence compared to both Kant and philosophy? How is logical and critically thinking bound to grammar? I'm afraid you are babbeling again, you only desperately grasp for straws, now that I've proven that Kant doesn't have relevance and you as always doesn't have a clue.

So, back to saying something intelligent which you havn't, just try for once!

You've only asserted that Kant was irrelevant; you did not provide reason or evidence for why you thought he was irrelevant at all. For example, what part of his Metaphysics, or his Ethics, do you think is wrong? Those are the type of things that I am looking for, which is different than simply saying that he's 'irrelavant'.

Having good grammar skills, which includes spelling, punctuation, etc., has a lot to do with competance, as by having good skills in grammar you've shown that you are capable of writing and that also, it's easier for people to read and decipher and would not show sloppiness on part of the writer, ie. You.

Dude, I've presented ample logical argumentation and grammar is just an aestethical thing just showing how unintelligent your argument is.

I've took you off ignore some days ago, and now u go right back on ignore, u are simply too stupid, tragicly stupid.

..oh yearh, and another rule of thump: When not to bright scorned people doesn't have anything intelligent to say, they pick on the grammar, LOL!

[Arising_uk]

... 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.

Whats more tragic are your misinterpretations. I know English is your second language and I'm impressed that you use it but check out the word "If" in the above, its not Mathematics but Logic, there's a difference.

2) only idiots would waste time on Kant.

Well, only idiots who were reading Philosophy and then only those interested in the problem that Hume raised and that Kant tried to answer.

[Ginkgo]

Well, only idiots who were reading Philosophy and then only those interested in the problem that Hume raised and that Kant tried to answer.

That's true. In the end Kant's answer to the problem Hume raised in relation to induction is still the best answer we have to date.
While there is no logical necessity when it comes to cause and effect there is a psychological necessity.

[HexHammer]

... 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.

Whats more tragic are your misinterpretations. I know English is your second language and I'm impressed that you use it but check out the word "If" in the above, its not Mathematics but Logic, there's a difference.

2) only idiots would waste time on Kant.

Well, only idiots who were reading Philosophy and then only those interested in the problem that Hume raised and that Kant tried to answer.

Logic or math it's all the same in the end, that's besides the point. The question is when do you know how to apply "if" in life? Usually we are certain things are "binary" but sometimes things comes with misconceptions, exceptions ..etc, so to apply "if" requires either exceptional knowledge, insight, intellect, etc all which us mortals usually lacks and only when we prepare ourselves we might have a brainwaves a few sec and it's gone.

Maybe I missed something, do enlighten me please.

"Kan't" only answerd Hume with babble and nonsense, by the past standards it might have been the best yet written, but in todays standards it's outdated.

[Arising_uk]

Logic or math it's all the same in the end, that's besides the point. ...

No they are not the same and that is the point.

The question is when do you know how to apply "if" in life? Usually we are certain things are "binary" but sometimes things comes with misconceptions, exceptions ..etc, so to apply "if" requires either exceptional knowledge, insight, intellect, etc all which us mortals usually lacks and only when we prepare ourselves we might have a brainwaves a few sec and it's gone.

You are talking babble and nonsense as the sentence in question started with 'if' and if you understand logic then you'd have understood that the form was P->Q, P, Q and you could put any propositions in there and the result would be the same which was the point of the paragraph and that was that there are analytical propositions in language.

Maybe I missed something, do enlighten me please.

Hope this helps.

"Kan't" only answerd Hume with babble and nonsense, by the past standards it might have been the best yet written, but in todays standards it's outdated.

Explain how? If not then I'll assume you're just another cozy chatter waffling upon the interweeb just because you can.

[Ginkgo]

"Kan't" only answerd Hume with babble and nonsense, by the past standards it might have been the best yet written, but in todays standards it's outdated.

Possibly...could you give me an outline of Kant's response to Hume?

[HexHammer]

"Kan't" only answerd Hume with babble and nonsense, by the past standards it might have been the best yet written, but in todays standards it's outdated.

Possibly...could you give me an outline of Kant's response to Hume?

I read "Kan't" when I was a mere teen it been too damn long and I'm an ol' feeble man by now, you present something relevant from Kan't now that you seem so in luv with him.

[HexHammer]

You are talking babble and nonsense as the sentence in question started with 'if' and if you understand logic then you'd have understood that the form was P->Q, P, Q and you could put any propositions in there and the result would be the same which was the point of the paragraph and that was that there are analytical propositions in language.

See this?

P->Q, P, Q

That is an equation, and can be understood mathematically!!!!! ..see?

You don't know what you are talking about!!!! ..see?????

So, if Kan't didn't speak babble and nonsense, why are we using Kan't in todays modern world? ..we use Newton on a daily basis along with Pythagoras.
..oh yearh! My best guess is he's outdated and replaced by better stuff!!!!

[Ginkgo]

I read "Kan't" when I was a mere teen it been too damn long and I'm an ol' feeble man by now, you present something relevant from Kan't now that you seem so in luv with him.

I just find him interesting. That's all really.

[HexHammer]

I read "Kan't" when I was a mere teen it been too damn long and I'm an ol' feeble man by now, you present something relevant from Kan't now that you seem so in luv with him.

I just find him interesting. That's all really.

Ooooh! Suddenly his relevance has disappeard, where did all the relevance go?

[Ginkgo]

I read "Kan't" when I was a mere teen it been too damn long and I'm an ol' feeble man by now, you present something relevant from Kan't now that you seem so in luv with him.

I just find him interesting. That's all really.

Ooooh! Suddenly his relevance has disappeard, where did all the relevance go?

Sorry I misunderstood. You want me to present something relevant in terms of present standards. Is that correct?

[Arising_uk]

I read "Kan't" when I was a mere teen it been too damn long and I'm an ol' feeble man by now, you present something relevant from Kan't now that you seem so in luv with him.

Not me, I'm in love with Anglo-American Philosophy and whilst I studied the Continentals, as I wasn't interested in an academic career, I found his Idealism not to my taste, did like the phenomenologists tho. I think this 'old' man shtick a cop-out(so says an old man) and think it may well be useful for you to re-read his Critique of Reason if you truly wish to stop the cozy-chatters talking nonsense, as I'm re-reading him now and he appears different through older eyes. As such I think his idea of synthetic a posteriori propositions, i.e the empirical propositions of science are an interesting distinction(not sure if I agree with the distinction or not just yet), and his attempt to ground metaphysics as an independent discipline is also interesting(again not sure if I think it viable just yet), and his overall analysis of what Reason can and cannot say would be useful to all in a world where Science is the driving force as too many appear to have no idea how to understand what it is scientists can and cannot say about things and this leaves them upon to the wiles of unscrupulous politicians who manipulate the scientists I think it would behoove democracy if more of its citizens became more philosophically minded, i.e. trained in critical thinking, epistemology and the philosophy of science. That or that they should learn more science.

[Arising_uk]

See this?

P->Q, P, Q

That is an equation, and can be understood mathematically!!!!! ..see?

Show me how.

You don't know what you are talking about!!!! ..see?????

I'll agree with this when you show me.

So, if Kan't didn't speak babble and nonsense, why are we using Kan't in todays modern world? ..we use Newton on a daily basis along with Pythagoras.
..oh yearh! My best guess is he's outdated and replaced by better stuff!!!!

Tell me what? Give me an example of what has replaced what Kant was talking about.

[HexHammer]

Sorry I misunderstood. You want me to present something relevant in terms of present standards. Is that correct?

Anything relevant, that should be an unmistakeable term!

[HexHammer]

See this?

P->Q, P, Q

That is an equation, and can be understood mathematically!!!!! ..see?

Show me how.

You don't know what you are talking about!!!! ..see?????

I'll agree with this when you show me.

So, if Kan't didn't speak babble and nonsense, why are we using Kan't in todays modern world? ..we use Newton on a daily basis along with Pythagoras.
..oh yearh! My best guess is he's outdated and replaced by better stuff!!!!

Tell me what? Give me an example of what has replaced what Kant was talking about.

There's nothing to show, it's already is an equation.

It's very easy just take something like his description of intelligences, that's outdated if you don't agree we have nothing further to discuss and you go straight back on ignore.