4 ms·
1) because there was mockery. 2) you say it's representations all the way down? Well it doesn't look that way to me. Or the author apparently. So that's two of
by swayvil 4y ago
1) because there was mockery.
2) you say it's representations all the way down? Well it doesn't look that way to me. Or the author apparently. So that's two of us.
3) go with extremely unlikely then. Don't trip over it.
- mdp2021 4y ago1) You are saying that a call for the use of wits had you decide for a label of 'misunderstanding'. What?! 2) And your opinion should be postulate in discussion? Especially when it was reminded that the representational nature of the mind and knowledge was recognized since the dawn of thought then called a main problem (Kant) and the starting point (Schopenhauer) at relative maturity? You think that just saying that "you see otherwise" suffices? 3) And the critical difference should be one of "degrees"?! It has to be _proven_, whether it is 'impossible' or 'almost so'. And if that rhetoric that sounds like sophism just meant "'difficult' in front of obstacles", well that should be more obvious to the architect than to the commenting passer-by looking from the border of the construction site - it is a very gratuitous note which wastes everyone's time; and it if it meant so, it should have expressed so instead of literally different statements (and morally "bait").