Fuck you, Immanuel Kant!

[BlinkingDuck]

@Siam Sam

“Those who can’t do, teach.”

…and those that can’t teach…teach teachers.

{or if you prefer the traditional one…administrate}

[Sitnam]

@BlinkingDuck

…and those that can’t teach…teach teachers.

{or if you prefer the traditional one…administrate}

Those who can, do.
Those who can’t, teach.
Those who can’t teach, teach gym.

[Indistinguishable]

Poor Jim always did get stuck with the least competent teachers…

[CalMeacham]

When I was a kid, my mother was taking evening classes to complete her college degree. One class she had to take was Philosophy. We sat together reading the chapter titles of Soren Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and the Sickness Unto Death. Reading these aloud, one after another, is hilarious. It’s even funnier when you consider the title of the book.

Almost as good is reading aloud the chapter titles from The Niebelungenlied – “How Gelpfrat Slew Dancwart”

[gigi]

I don’t care what the purpose of the thread was, I still had a hideous flashback to undergrad philosophy. If nothing else, it made me happy I never have to go to school again.

Liberal, I know who to blame if I have a student nightmare tonight.

[Subterraneanus]

I can explain the passage to the OP. For a fee.

[Subterraneanus]

@Liberal

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.

Actually it’s a straightforward statement of a fairly fundamental Kantian distinction: the distinction between the empirical ego and the transcendental ego. Inner sense is simply the empirical observation of one’s own experiences insofar as they are subjective, and which are marked by temporality. The transcendental ego is the fundamental unity of consciousness that makes temporal unity and empirical knowledge possible in the first place.

[Indistinguishable]

We’ll have none of that. Make more puns.

[Liberal]

@Subterraneanus

Actually it’s a straightforward statement of a fairly fundamental Kantian distinction: the distinction between the empirical ego and the transcendental ego. Inner sense is simply the empirical observation of one’s own experiences insofar as they are subjective, and which are marked by temporality. The transcendental ego is the fundamental unity of consciousness that makes temporal unity and empirical knowledge possible in the first place.

For the purpose of clarity (a mutual coherence), it can be said to be the case that in truth an awareness — or an apperception ameliorated by the foundational principles heretofore established as having already been learned — of the nature of temporal and transcendent realities as espoused by Immanuel Kant has not entirely eluded my own inner sense, except inasmuch as quoting him was motivated by a desire to be jocular, much in the manner of a TOPS member farting loudly at a Mensa gathering.

[E.Thorp]

@Tapioca Dextrin

@Leviosaurus

You’d get nowhere with that fucker Wiggenstein (sic) in the room, lemme tell ya.

Are you referring to early Wittgenstein or the late Wittgenstein?

Fucker Wiggenstein, a minor character in Ulysses, who spent all day shuttling between two seedy Dublin pubs, mooching pints of Guinness and boasting about his logico-philosophical exploits among the Cantabridgean coeds.

[SCSimmons]

@Tapioca Dextrin

Are you referring to early Wittgenstein or the late Wittgenstein?

It would be really fun to get both of them into a room together. Watch the fireworks, baby!

(Ironically, whether that hypothetical situation is logically coherent is one of they things they’d probably argue about. )

[Subterraneanus]

@Liberal

For the purpose of clarity (a mutual coherence), it can be said to be the case that in truth an awareness — or an apperception ameliorated by the foundational principles heretofore established as having already been learned — of the nature of temporal and transcendent realities as espoused by Immanuel Kant has not entirely eluded my own inner sense, except inasmuch as quoting him was motivated by a desire to be jocular, much in the manner of a TOPS member farting loudly at a Mensa gathering.

Hmm, and here I thought you just wanted to tell the board that you read Kant.

[Liberal]

@Subterraneanus

Hmm, and here I thought you just wanted to tell the board that you read Kant.

The thread is a parody of another thread. (Click the last two links in the OP.)