Kantian Metaphysics Overrides ALL Existing Philosophies

[Iwannaplato]

........
Discuss??
Views??

AGain, a fundamental misunderstanding. Of what? Kant? Not exactly. VA's problems run deeper. They are at a basic logic and interaction level and he literally cannot see what he is doing.

What he does here. He repeats and supports Kant's claim about himself and his work. Thus VA appeals to Kant's self-assessment in an appeal to authority about...Kant's work. I mean, could one be more objective?????

Then, instead of supporting his postion, expects others to demonstrate Kant was wrong.

He doesn't understand that he is asserting and should start the ball rolling by justifying his claim.

Discuss??
Views??

This is open for discussion.
Thus anything goes.
The point is do you have anything to contribute that would expand the knowledge base of anyone interested?

The point was that you presented a non-argument, or at best an extremely fallacious one. Sure, I could jump to the topic, but given we are in a philosophy forum, the fallacious mess of the OP is the immediate problem.

It's an onus shifter. Instead of taking a position and justifying it, you appeal the the authority of someone ABOUT THEIR OWN work, as if this supports your position on that person's work.

It's as good an argument as a Islam is correct because Muhammad said so.


So, yes, I could ignore the absurdity of the OP and START THE THREAD FOR YOU, by presenting a position and then justifying that. Or I could point out that you don't seem to understand some basic things.

[Veritas Aequitas]

AGain, a fundamental misunderstanding. Of what? Kant? Not exactly. VA's problems run deeper. They are at a basic logic and interaction level and he literally cannot see what he is doing.

What he does here. He repeats and supports Kant's claim about himself and his work. Thus VA appeals to Kant's self-assessment in an appeal to authority about...Kant's work. I mean, could one be more objective?????

Then, instead of supporting his postion, expects others to demonstrate Kant was wrong.

He doesn't understand that he is asserting and should start the ball rolling by justifying his claim.

Discuss??
Views??

This is open for discussion.
Thus anything goes.
The point is do you have anything to contribute that would expand the knowledge base of anyone interested?

The point was that you presented a non-argument, or at best an extremely fallacious one. Sure, I could jump to the topic, but given we are in a philosophy forum, the fallacious mess of the OP is the immediate problem.

It's an onus shifter. Instead of taking a position and justifying it, you appeal the the authority of someone ABOUT THEIR OWN work, as if this supports your position on that person's work.

It's as good an argument as a Islam is correct because Muhammad said so.

So, yes, I could ignore the absurdity of the OP and START THE THREAD FOR YOU, by presenting a position and then justifying that. Or I could point out that you don't seem to understand some basic things.

Blabbering again.
I specifically stated it is for discussion, not specifically an argument.

Based on the question of the OP, anyone
1. could agree with the OP and present their case or
2. disagree with the OP and present their counters or
3. they could argue it is Philosopher X's philosophy that overrides all existing philosophies.

From the various responses, I will add more of views to support the OP.
This is what is likely will happen in proper forum like those in Reddit.