The mind and reality

[dilloduck]

How is it possible to NOT demonstrate the Truth ?

By being wrong.

How will I know when you're wrong ?

 

[Mount Brocken]

You need to read more than the back cover of the book. Do yourself a favor and actually study Kant seriously. You'll find it very interesting.

I am not going to grace this with an answer since it is NOTHING MORE THAN AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK!!! This is why I left Facebook. I had hoped to find gracious, intelligent, reasonable conversation here. I suppose I was wrong. For your information, I have read Kant from cover to cover. I have written NUMEROUS papers on Kant. I have a degree in Philosophy, have helped several academics with two master theses and a PhD dissertation. So please do yourself a favor and treat me with respect and address ONLY my points and not perceptions about my background, intelligence, knowledge, etc...

 

[Mount Brocken]

Dilloduck, that is a great question. I suppose you have to ask yourself how you determine the difference between what is true and what is false.

 

[Unkotare]

You need to read more than the back cover of the book. Do yourself a favor and actually study Kant seriously. You'll find it very interesting.

I am not going to grace this with an answer since it is NOTHING MORE THAN AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK!!! ...

No attack, just good advice.

 

[Unkotare]

For your information, I have read Kant from cover to cover. ...

Have read what "cover to cover"? Kant had over 100 published works.

 

[Mount Brocken]

It is funny how you can assess my background based on a post on a forum. Highly respected scholars in the field of Philosophy debate Kant even today and are far more contentious and certain of their conclusions but somehow you have a special knowledge of him that bars any other interpretation of specific features of his doctrine.

 

[Unkotare]

It is funny how you can assess my background based on a post on a forum. ...

Not so funny. You make it pretty easy.

 

[Mount Brocken]

The Prolegomena to a Future Metaphysic and Critique of Pure Reason. I suggest you contact the Philosophy Department of Cologne, Prague or Berlin. They could certainly benefit from your certain knowledge of his views.

 

[Mount Brocken]

How will I know when you're wrong ?

Not so funny. You make it pretty easy.

I am not going to comment anymore. It is clear you are not a serious intellectual. You are just spewing out ad hominems and criticizing my background without an interest in a discussion on Epistemology. This post was not a discussion of Kant.

 

[Unkotare]

The Prolegomena to a Future Metaphysic and Critique of Pure Reason. ...

So you took an intro course. That's good. You might have paid more attention, but it's a start.

 

[Unkotare]

This post was not a discussion of Kant.

You're sure hoping it's not, 'cause there goes your OP up in smoke...

 

[Mount Brocken]

Your responses mirror that of 4chan, not of any serious discussion on anything.

 

[Pennywise]

Your responses mirror that of 4chan, not of any serious discussion on anything.

The moron you found yourself engaged with never adds anything of worth to discussions here. The very idea that he would claim some expertise on philosophy is laughable considering he spends all his time here claiming to know more than everyone else. He will not even be able to decipher the irony of that.

 

[Mount Brocken]

Well perhaps he should go to 4chan if he wants laughs and seeks to belittle and bash people. I am not claiming to be a scholar on Kant, but I do have some background and to be disrespected like this is not what I was looking for. If I wanted that I would go back to Facebook.

 

[Pennywise]

Well perhaps he should go to 4chan if he wants laughs and seeks to belittle and bash people. I am not claiming to be a scholar on Kant, but I do have some background and to be disrespected like this is not what I was looking for. If I wanted that I would go back to Facebook.

It's all he knows. He thinks he's the smartest one in the room at all times, but in reality he's just a perpetually mundane big mouth. Ignore his childish retorts and engage with people who are smart enough to know they don't know it all.

 

[Mount Brocken]

Well I prefer those sorts of dialogue. For I certainly don't know it all, not even close. It is a shame however that the moderator of this site doesn't somehow block him. If one is only creating an atmosphere irritation and humiliation, it would seem he should be blocked.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Is the content of the mind perceptions of reality or reflections of empirical reality?

An ages old question:

"The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."

See: A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[Mount Brocken]

An ages old question:

"The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."

See: A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Ah yes, Kantian distinctions. I am aware of them. I was referring however to the basis of knowledge, more of a metaepistemic question. Not so much what we know, but how we know. And not just how we know, but the ontological question of the mind and whether there is an external world at all or whether all things come from Mind.

 

[Mertex]

Well perhaps he should go to 4chan if he wants laughs and seeks to belittle and bash people. I am not claiming to be a scholar on Kant, but I do have some background and to be disrespected like this is not what I was looking for. If I wanted that I would go back to Facebook.

Sometimes you just have to ignore the trolls. Every forum is graced with them, and this one is no different. After a while you get to know who they are and you simply ignore them.

If you want serious discussion without the nonsensical one-liners, go to the Clean Debate Zone. They're not allowed to post their crap there and so they don't even go there. You'll find plenty of decent people here that are willing to discuss issues whether they agree with you or not without calling names and insulting. These trolls, not so much.

 

[Pennywise]

An ages old question:

"The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."

See: A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Ah yes, Kantian distinctions. I am aware of them. I was referring however to the basis of knowledge, more of a metaepistemic question. Not so much what we know, but how we know. And not just how we know, but the ontological question of the mind and whether there is an external world at all or whether all things come from Mind.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a good friend in the distant past, during the time at which I began my introspections focusing mainly at the time(almost 30 years ago) on eastern philosophy and most specifically the work of Alan Watts. The question directed at me was "how do you know the colors you see are the same as the colors I see?" he went to further make the case that it could very well be that my vision of red is his vision of green, etc.