I believe I used logic with application to metaphysics in order to correct your metaphysical attempt at a “big question”. Not anything some mob dictated to me, only in order to try and take you away from metaphysics.
Might I suggest more specific responses instead of a general response? Not that you have to comply, I just think it would help with the details.
Much may have escaped me, but it seems OP are spewing random words in a huge selfcontradicting manner.
Absolute void, how can that be when we know the universe are filled with galaxies? Then there can be no void, and especially no absolute.
Rest is just wordgasms en masse, beautiful rethorics to delude self and others.
Kan’t deluded everyone with his wishful thinking, and the question is , was it an act of misrepresentation, and if it was was it a necessary saving grace? The grace saved was of short duration, because the ego showed through with vanity, will. It doesen’t make misrepresentation less reprehensible, as an act in it self, but it is mitigated by the intent which was on all probability altrusitic.
Besides, for Kant, intuition was not as commonly supposed, but one of sensation. He let it go, in order for common people to get his message across.
Sihlouette:
It’s difficult to put forth all the reasons in support of the premise with which my argument begins, and ends. The premise leads to the conclusion, and can also be seen in the conclusion. In that sense when I define the Absolute the argument begins and ends with the Absolute. The one philosopher with a similar beginning, which I quote is Hegel, specifically from his “Science of Logic.”
The big bang theory is mentioned because it provides some empirical support for the metaphysical theory I put forth. The argument can also be called a theory in that it is speculative in nature. Using logic, along with the critical direction of Kant, who dismisses any appeal to the magic wand of so-called common sense in metaphysics, the question concerning the premise pertains to the definition of nothing. On Kant’s own advice I discount the common-sensed dictionary definition of nothing, which is a practical notion that should not be carried over into metaphysics. This is what I have argued in the essay that I had published in the “Review of Metaphysics.” In his “Science of Logic” Hegel argues that his analogous beginning (he begins with the absolute) is a “bare beginning as such” and he states this beginning “admits of no analysis.” I agree with this idea of a beginning, but disagree with the notion that such a beginning admits of no analysis. To repeat the premise, maybe somewhat, what we have is an unconditional sate, or a state that is infinite. We cannot impose upon such an idea any arbitrary limitation or condition. This itself is a critical judgment, and a logical one. All we have to reflect on here is what such a beginning portends, if anything. The importance of cosmology with respect to the big bang theory is that it lends support to this idea of an initial beginning in the remote past. My argument necessitates, on the a priori grounds of its four principles, the expansion of the universe–it is something that comes out of the argument, and it is not something forced into the argument. It is integral to the argument. The argument also necessitates a beginning with a singularity–something inexplicable by the ordinary laws of physics; but which is explicable through metaphysics. The principles, being a priori, fall in line with Kant’s critical demands. This is of no small importance. The argument can also be defined as a synthetic cognition a priori, from premise to conclusion. Thus it adheres to Kant’s dictate: “Metaphysics must be science, not only as a whole, but in all its parts, otherwise it is nothing at all.” Furthermore, there is nothing whatsoever in the argument that conflicts in any way with the findings in science, but to the contrary, it happens to agree with the most far-reaching, and critical findings. Using logic, I can therefore gather much stronger evidence in support of this theory from metaphysics than can ever be gathered up against it. But again, forums like this prove extremely limiting. Right now as I’m typing I’m waiting for the cursor to catch up with me. Besides, posters are not inclined to offer elaborate and extensive critiques, especially when they have little to go on. Any philosophical argument must be grasped in its entirety before one can go about evaluating it. But this forum is not the place to present the argument. The most I can expect from this is to gather up some information that might help me bolster up my defenses. To this end, negativism and skepticism are of no interest to me. I’m optimistic with respect to reason and its potential. If others wish to hold to their skepticism that will not serve as a reason for me to adopt the same mindset.
I cannot outline the whole argument here. My only reason for posting a fraction of it was to solicit some comments; and I’ve used these comments to try and make the argument more cogent. The first post mentioned something about “arrogance” and I even take this criticism into account. But at the same time, I cannot throw an argument out simply because of a simple comment made by someone who does not have the argument fully formulated in their own thinking, and in such a way that they can comprehend its strengths, or weaknesses, or just what it is that the argument has to offer. One thing that it can definitely offer is an open, non skeptically grounded, interpretation of Kant’s critical philosophy, and in this an argument in defense of metaphysics and its continuing relevance.
Maybe we should introduce a new politic about certain people being locked up in Mundane Babble section.