Why no evidence for your claims? It's your assertion, your burden of proof, not mine. I merely pointed out that any answer, or non-answer< I would give you would not prove your claim. Prove I have never been around a philosophy department or ever have read Kant. You don't even know what evidence you would need to prove such a claim. Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that I could not answer any question on Kant. So? Does that rule out my having read Kant years ago, and having decided he wrote gibberish, to not waste any more time on anything he wrote? Nope. Would it also prove that I had never been to a philosophy department? Nope. Why? Because I could have taken formal classes in philosophy, but not one touching on Kant.Arising_uk wrote:Why so coy?
You evade any of my questions and all of the issues I raised with you because you pretty much talk other peoples opinions and think this entitles you to have an opinion upon the subject of philosophy.
You are a classic Yank internut weeb. Still, get your professor here then as it'd be more interesting than your guff.
I'm just pointing out how lame your approach is. You still have the burden of proof, and have not proved your assertion. How are you even going to do it?