5 ms·

You say: "We can't conceive of things that are not experienced, by definition" I mean, you probably don't even realize that this view is influenced by Kant. Yo

You say: "We can't conceive of things that are not experienced, by definition" I mean, you probably don't even realize that this view is influenced by Kant. You are giving a very poor retread of 200+ year old German idealism. For example, from the Wikipedia article on Critique of Pure Reason [1], Kant's major work: In the preface to the first edition, Kant explains that by a "critique of pure reason" he means a critique "of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may strive independently of all experience" I think it is fair to criticize his prose but it isn't like you don't have access to well over 200 years of commentary and follow-ups to one of the most famous and important philosophers within the Western tradition. For a gentle introduction I suggest this video [2] (42 minutes) where Geoffrey Warnock (at the time the Vice Chancellor at Oxford) provides an overview of Kant's ideas. It is also fair to disagree with Kant, but it is pretty obvious when you are talking about the subject he dominates while having no experience with his work. The reason he is so famous is that he had very compelling things to say on this very subject. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlEMkAkGS1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlEMkAkGS1I

namaria 3y ago
It's a fairly narrow view if you think I shouldn't philosophize unless I conform in full to all YOU have read.
- zoogeny 3y ago
  I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't do. I'm pointing out a few facts including that your viewpoint is well over 200 years old, that specifically Kant addressed it and influenced the entire discussion around it, that it is clear you haven't considered his or any other philosophers rebuttal to it. To give an example, it would be like you were talking about gravity and saying that Newton was right. Then someone mentions Einstein, and you respond that you couldn't be bothered understanding the general theory of relativity because the math is too hard. I mean, no one is saying you should read Einstein, just that Einstein had some things to add to the ideas of gravity that are worth considering. And if you want any theory of gravity that you have baked up on your own to be taken seriously, you will find that others will expect you to show some familiarity with his theories. And further, there is a wealth of material on his theories that does not require you to engage directly with the esoteric math. The same is true about Kant (although, to be fair this is philosophy and not physics, so he didn't supplant Descartes in the same way Einstein did Newton). He added explicitly to the question about the bounds of knowledge with respect to experience. So if you are making claims about that subject then it is not unreasonable to expect that you have at least some familiarity with his contribution.
  - namaria 3y ago
    > So I think there's a lot of work here that needs to be done to make your argument stronger. > You are giving a very poor retread of 200+ year old German idealism. You kept putting me down because my ideas don't jibe with your readings. Now you're comparing philosophy with physics. I am trying stay away from such pedantic bibliographic review. You keep appealing to authority to minimize my contributions. This is why I didn't want to go down this road. Thanks for dragging me. > your viewpoint is well over 200 years old Hate to break this to you but the ideas I'm talking about are well over 3000 years old. Kant et al are a cul de sac in this tradition.
    - zoogeny 3y ago
      > Kant et al are a cul de sac in this tradition. Perhaps, yet how would you know if you refuse to engage with it? I'm not sure how to respond when someone insists on remaining ignorant of alternative viewpoints and then suggests that any attempt to point out relevant arguments against their position is victimizing them.
      - namaria 3y ago
        So refusing to engage with you and your readings is refusing to engage at all with the subject and insisting on ignorance? I saw the self importance a mile away and I said I wanted none of it. Like I said, I dislike German philosophers verbosity and I'm getting to dislike its fans' self importance. edit: you've called my ideas half baked, you've called me ignorant. it's pretty clear to me now you just wanted to play vocabulary ping pong with dead man's ideas to feel smart. I pretty much intuited it, and regretted every engagement with you so far.

namaria 3y ago

It's a fairly narrow view if you think I shouldn't philosophize unless I conform in full to all YOU have read.

zoogeny 3y ago
I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't do. I'm pointing out a few facts including that your viewpoint is well over 200 years old, that specifically Kant addressed it and influenced the entire discussion around it, that it is clear you haven't considered his or any other philosophers rebuttal to it. To give an example, it would be like you were talking about gravity and saying that Newton was right. Then someone mentions Einstein, and you respond that you couldn't be bothered understanding the general theory of relativity because the math is too hard. I mean, no one is saying you should read Einstein, just that Einstein had some things to add to the ideas of gravity that are worth considering. And if you want any theory of gravity that you have baked up on your own to be taken seriously, you will find that others will expect you to show some familiarity with his theories. And further, there is a wealth of material on his theories that does not require you to engage directly with the esoteric math. The same is true about Kant (although, to be fair this is philosophy and not physics, so he didn't supplant Descartes in the same way Einstein did Newton). He added explicitly to the question about the bounds of knowledge with respect to experience. So if you are making claims about that subject then it is not unreasonable to expect that you have at least some familiarity with his contribution.
- namaria 3y ago
  > So I think there's a lot of work here that needs to be done to make your argument stronger. > You are giving a very poor retread of 200+ year old German idealism. You kept putting me down because my ideas don't jibe with your readings. Now you're comparing philosophy with physics. I am trying stay away from such pedantic bibliographic review. You keep appealing to authority to minimize my contributions. This is why I didn't want to go down this road. Thanks for dragging me. > your viewpoint is well over 200 years old Hate to break this to you but the ideas I'm talking about are well over 3000 years old. Kant et al are a cul de sac in this tradition.
  - zoogeny 3y ago
    > Kant et al are a cul de sac in this tradition. Perhaps, yet how would you know if you refuse to engage with it? I'm not sure how to respond when someone insists on remaining ignorant of alternative viewpoints and then suggests that any attempt to point out relevant arguments against their position is victimizing them.
    - namaria 3y ago
      So refusing to engage with you and your readings is refusing to engage at all with the subject and insisting on ignorance? I saw the self importance a mile away and I said I wanted none of it. Like I said, I dislike German philosophers verbosity and I'm getting to dislike its fans' self importance. edit: you've called my ideas half baked, you've called me ignorant. it's pretty clear to me now you just wanted to play vocabulary ping pong with dead man's ideas to feel smart. I pretty much intuited it, and regretted every engagement with you so far.