Fuck you, Immanuel Kant!

Holy shit! This is a laborious read, and nothing short of an absurdity. I’ve heard some of these ideas, of course, but this exposition is the first I’ve ever seen making it all meaningless.

Critique of Pure Reason, Transcendental Analytic, Book II, The Analytic of Principles, pages 176 through 296

Notice of Parody

You might even say he’s a real pissant.

I agree. Certain posters get reamed over their abuse of “Linda Richman” tactics, but it’s really quite a more widespread problem on this board than we sometimes realize.

And seriously: can you please summarize it in your own words, people? You’re posting an OP to start a discussion on a topic of your choosing. The least you can do is put a little effort into its inception. Cutting and pasing five paragraphs from your link is not effort. If I’m going to wade through a big quote, I might as well just read the source.

Oh, and from the linked source:

That’s bullshit. “Guess what, kids? We’re going to Orlando this spring break to visit mundus Disney!”

Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, however–there was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.

(I love that sketch. :D)

I’m trying to understand what the big deal is here, but I just Kant figure it out.

Perhaps you should read the Immanuel.

EDIT: Waiddaminnit! Am I being Whooshed here?

I notice you didn’t notice the notice of parody.

Yes, I did, but too late. That’s why I went back and asked if I were being Whooshed. DAMN that small print!

I’d do you the courtesy of editing my post out of existence, but this thread would get as difficult to read as, say, the writings of Immanuel Kant.

Yeah. preach it, bro!

Fuck Wiggenstein and his fucking Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus! Seriously, anyone who names their book the “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus” oughta be punched right in the mouth.

Fuck Bertrand Russell and his fucking logical atomism too. What an asshole.

You know, I feel sorry for Liberal, who’s only received one truly on-topic reply in all the posts so far. :slight_smile:

It’s my own fault. I should have included this from another part of the book:

"Even the inner and sensible intuition of our mind (as object of consciousness) which is represented as being determined by the succession of different states in time, is not the self proper, as it exists in itself — that is, is not the transcendental subject — but only an appearance that has been given to the sensibility of this, to us unknown, being."That should clear it all up.

Not according to Wiggenstein! Where’s the numbering system for the ‘oracular utterances’? Where’s the acknowledgement that metaphysical discussion lies outside the realm of sense, and must therefore be shown, not spoken of? You’d get nowhere with that fucker Wiggenstein in the room, lemme tell ya.

Witty, though. He had that going for him.

He was exactly as funny as a World War 1 trench soldier suffering from severe depression whose main hobby is contemplating the futility of imperfect language. Everyone assumed that was the reason he was so in demand on the party circuit, but it turned out it was actually because the man could boogie. They say you could tell by the way he used his walk, he was a woman’s man, no time to talk.

(Few realize the Bee Gees were his devoted followers.)

No problem, but now I feel like a fool. Damn these fake pittings! :frowning:

Don’t feel bad. I must have seen Smells Like Nirvana a thousand times before I realized it wasn’t Kurt Cobain.

Link to what we’re mocking? Guess I have to go hunting myself. I started writing a post in defense of Kant and his translator. . .