dammit uniqor
whys the HE in caps and if your gonna drag this out forget it
Please read my post Metooism. Then you’ll know a little about Derrida Is dead.
Dear prejudiced Sophis and presumptuos hater of truth,
I have read every survinving word that Plato ever wrote. Both Socrates and Plato believed that objects of experience were “things in themselves.”
Kant was the greatest philosopher who ever graced and blessed the face of God’s Earth. Borrow a clue.
Where?
Anyway, how is that falsifiable? If it were true how could you show it could be tested false?
popper did not solve the problem of induction (nor did kant)… hume was and remains correct, justified true belief remains unjustified…
-Imp
You had said:
That is Empiricism. If your readings of Plato lead you to believe that he is an Empiricist, you read him incorrectly. The things you see in the Cave are shadows, for Plato, the true reality are the Forms. It is the lowliest workers, and not the true Philosophers, who believe “that what you see is what it is”. It is the intrinsic that is true, not the extrinsic.
dictionary.reference.com/search?q=extrinsic
huh?
Plato believed that the objects of experience were aids for our soul trying to reminisce the pure forms that are contained in the hyper-uranus (above the sky)
For plato the object of experience were illusions, hence not source of knoweledge as the only true knowledge comes from the rational experience of forms (eidos).
As it is obvious Plato never believed that an object of experience can be known as a “thing in itself” (to ti en einai) as their “nature” resides in the transcendental plane.
I seriously hope to have misunderstood you post, because these are intro to phil 101 concepts…
dont you people realize that all you are doing is comparing random book terms that you probably dont all share a knowledge of in common?
and whatever your saying, your not thinking, your talking about what somebody else said.
whenever you use a large, ambiguous term like transcendental idealist explain what it means and what it has to do with anything, instead of using the ambiguous term. i guess im an unedumucated loser but it would be nice.
Future Man,
You could purchase or borrow a collegiate dictionary if you need help with the terminology.
Future man
So why do you think that punching your brother will cause him to cry?
But motion and solidity don’t imply a certain effect, anymore than looking at an object can suggest it causing an event. Empirical experience does not convey causality, there is no impression by which we can derive it.
It may appear to you that Punching your brother causes him to cry, but where is the emperical connection? Where is the link? The brink? What “tie” did you observe between the punch and him crying? That one followed after the other? Post Hoc fallacy? You cannot derive the causal relationship from empericism, there is a certain metaphyscial assumption added that you unknowingly posit as part of empericism.
well nihil how would i ever know that i ever did anything? my brain has a built in mechanism from god or randomly mutated thanks to evolution that makes me have this idea under the hood?
i dont understand what the electro, weak or strong force are. those are the things that work when i punch someone. i never actually see the process, youre right.
but i dont think i have to. the unkown thing here is what happens when you are a baby. either your fetus grows some special crap in its brain that nobody knows how to find, and this special mutation allows our sensory experience to include the idea of cause and effect, or there is something about the blank slate-ness (whether youre empiricist or rationalist) something about recognizing your first pattern that allows you to learn such a fundamental concept.
i would say that since the universe has this cause and effect built into it, it behaves this way, it shows us patterns that adhere to this law, it does the work, we dont need to have anything special form in our brain. all we need is the ability to recognize the aptterns that are presented to us. it doesnt matter if we dont undertand the underlying process. we dont need to know how enzymes work to know that eating food will cause you to poop. all we need to know is that in the past, according to what we perceived, when we ate food, poop followed shortly after.
the other piece of information that we would have to have accumulated in our infancy is that the future will resemble the past. if we can learn that, we can learn it all. sure theres no reason to assume the future will resemble past, but if thats all you ever see then you better believe theres a reason to believe that.
Music is the only true a priori.
Both are theorys, imagined and invented to describe being. though evoltuion maybe derived by logic 80%, and observable empirical facts 20%, as there is a uncanny resemblence between animals that makes sense. thus the theory… i dont completely agree with it; survival of the fittest? No. god would simply be blind faith in reason, a hightened sensation of righteousness which we attach the word truth to. kant, reason critique’s reason - what!? with WORDS?! 
you see the effects, all causal description of forces will change in time. four hundred years down the line it maybe “the giant spider of znvskdhf’s web vibrating” you cant deduce this from experience. all your sentiency is the effects, any use of causality is falsification using a method used since the ‘clean-slate’ to know. not thats its right, what if your brother ducks in the future, or is hit by a car, or laughs at you and punchs you back?
cause: something that makes us feel in control. i think i know im thinking; isnt it great how descartes ‘cogito’ has come to represent the state of been unsure.