You make everything about Kant all the time. Kant is the only thing you have. Nobody else is trapped like you.
Why don't you read up Kant's CPR and his books on Morality and show why Kant's philosophy is worthless.
Long before Kant philosophy was separated by Rationalism [crude & pure reason] and Empiricism and the twain could never meet.
It was the same with p_realism vs anti-p_realism.
Kant reconciled the above dichotomies with his Copernican Revolution in presenting a more realistic impartial philosophy.
Surely it is more worthwhile to side with an impartial than partial philosophy.
From Kant I can easily demonstrate yours is a low grade philosophy as you have revealed so far.
You make everything about Kant all the time. Kant is the only thing you have. Nobody else is trapped like you.
If you have read widely extending to alternative views from yours you will note there are many very pro Kantian and neo-Kantian philosophers.
What counts is the actual arguments not simply making claims.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 1:33 am
Why don't you read up Kant's CPR and his books on Morality and show why Kant's philosophy is worthless.
Long before Kant philosophy was separated by Rationalism [crude & pure reason] and Empiricism and the twain could never meet.
It was the same with p_realism vs anti-p_realism.
Kant reconciled the above dichotomies with his Copernican Revolution in presenting a more realistic impartial philosophy.
Surely it is more worthwhile to side with an impartial than partial philosophy.
From Kant I can easily demonstrate yours is a low grade philosophy as you have revealed so far.
You make everything about Kant all the time. Kant is the only thing you have. Nobody else is trapped like you.
If you have read widely extending to alternative views from yours you will note there are many very pro Kantian and neo-Kantian philosophers.
What counts is the actual arguments not simply making claims.
You make everything about Kant all the time. Kant is the only thing you have. Nobody else is trapped like you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 2:03 am
If you have read widely extending to alternative views from yours you will note there are many very pro Kantian and neo-Kantian philosophers.
What counts is the actual arguments not simply making claims.
You make everything about Kant all the time. Kant is the only thing you have. Nobody else is trapped like you.
Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 3:50 pm
that question is solved through your choices and actions
-Imp
For yourself, but this has nothing to do with the big question.
the big question asked individually?
or do think there is a universally sensed or intuited purpose (or universally sensed or intuited anything?)
be aware of your "framework"
-Imp
What is it with you people that when you see the "why" question, you always wonder about an individual purpose or a universal purpose? I tried writing "how" too, but then I'm just directed to science. No there's no reason to think that any of this has a purpose, if there's an answer to the big question then it's probably not sensed or intuited, and science probably doesn't see the big picture to be able to answer it, we only see a part of the picture.
Atla wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 3:02 pm
The imo biggest metaphysical problem, "Why are we here?" for example remains completely unsolved even to this day.
Or Heidegger's question of "why is there something rather than nothing"? I doubt there will ever be answers to such questions. In a sense, studying philosophy is also learning how to live with ignorance. But I think studying philosophy does change a person for the better.
Don't do that, casually grouping together the totally unanswerable "why is there something rather than nothing" with the big question that might just be answerable.
Atla wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 3:02 pm
The imo biggest metaphysical problem, "Why are we here?" for example remains completely unsolved even to this day.
Or Heidegger's question of "why is there something rather than nothing"? I doubt there will ever be answers to such questions. In a sense, studying philosophy is also learning how to live with ignorance. But I think studying philosophy does change a person for the better.
Don't do that, casually grouping together the totally unanswerable "why is there something rather than nothing" with the big question that might just be answerable.
Fair enough. I just threw that out there as an unanswered question. I suppose the question "why are we here" could be answered one day.
It's a question that is a little ambiguous, though. When one asks, "why are we here", are they asking, for example, for what purpose were we created by whatever or whoever created us or is it being asked by what natural processes did we sprout up on this planet?
Conceivably we could find answers to those two questions but never be sure that something isn't even beyond them that would explain why our creator is here or why there is something instead of nothing. For example, we could meet our creator and find out that our creator isn't the final cause of everything that is. What if our creator was created by a cause before our creator that we are unable to ever discover or understand due to our human limitations. Or what if something preceded the beginning of the universe but it is impossible to determine what.
Atla wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 5:25 pm
For yourself, but this has nothing to do with the big question.
the big question asked individually?
or do think there is a universally sensed or intuited purpose (or universally sensed or intuited anything?)
be aware of your "framework"
-Imp
What is it with you people that when you see the "why" question, you always wonder about an individual purpose or a universal purpose? I tried writing "how" too, but then I'm just directed to science. No there's no reason to think that any of this has a purpose, if there's an answer to the big question then it's probably not sensed or intuited, and science probably doesn't see the big picture to be able to answer it, we only see a part of the picture.
is English your first language?
I am not "you people"
I was simply asking about your perspective - but you seem to believe that perspective (sensed or intuited) is limited and irrelevant
a part of the picture...
1+1=2
but the number system is infinite and we only see a part of the picture
