This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - fatchance
« on: May 01, 2006, 11:15:45 PM »
Well, here goes...
So, i believe that we all agree that Babies outside of the womb are human persons..
And some argue that the "Unborn" (that should be neutral enough) are not human persons..
Then what difference between the two disqualifies the Unborn from personhood?
« on: May 01, 2006, 03:43:10 PM »
« on: April 30, 2006, 02:09:28 PM »
Dont feel that way. Ill be in your neck of the woods next week. Waht dya say we catch "Brokeback Mt" and a pizza.PS thats not really me in my TAR-
« on: April 29, 2006, 09:24:02 PM »
I like Kant's first critique. I think that people (read students of philosophy) are too in love with criticism (much of which they don't understand) to appreciate the genius of this work.
I know geometry. I'm just much more familiar with Euclidian, rather than Kantian. Perhaps you could explain how they are similar and then I could extrapolate big theries.
It's not so much that Kant has a geometry himself (as far as I know). The connection between Kant and geometry is that Kant believes Euclidean geometry to be apodictic. He takes the certainty of Euclidean geometry as a premise in his argument that space is a pure intuition (that is, something like a form of intuition that divorced from anything empirical).
The argument from geometry, as it is called, in the Transcendental Aesthetic goes something like this:
(1) The propositions of Euclidean geometry are synthetic (intuitions + concepts) yet a priori (do not depend on anything empirical)
(2) In order for (1) to be true, we must have a pure (not empirical) intuition of space. (or, better, space must be a pure intuition.)
Therefore, (3) space is a pure intuition.
For Kant's arguments about the possibility for knowledge to work, he needs pure intuition. (Kant's question, asked one way, is how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?)
But as geometers have known for some time, Euclidean geometry isn't the only geometry. Since there are various non-Euclidean geometries that also describe space accurately, it seems that (1) above must be wrong insofar as it assumes that Euclidean geometry is a priori true. Kant's argument from geometry appears to fail.
Many scholars take this failure to be fatal for Kant's project. I don't, for various reasons, and some others agree.
Could you repeat that
« on: April 29, 2006, 09:12:04 PM »
It is good to have an open mind- just not so open that your brain falls out.
Cmon guys, really now, I honestly can't believe youre taking this video seriously.
There are plenty of things to hate Bush about. You dont need to manufacture this crazy stuff.
« on: April 29, 2006, 04:38:37 PM »
Are we into conspiracy thoeries now?
« on: April 29, 2006, 04:35:07 PM »
Dost not Thou know thy answer
« on: April 29, 2006, 04:34:20 PM »