Can't This Pompous Ass Take What He Dishes Out?

"Question Jeff - does a dog see a mirage?"

Only a dog knows what a dog sees.

"If not, then that implies only conceptual beings so see, which further implies it is more than just the perceptual usage of the senses in determining knowing reality correctly - which makes Rand's assessment of Kant correct..."

Kant himself acknowledged that we must interpret the data brought to us by our senses, using our reason, in order to discover truth. If in fact only conceptual beings see mirages, this verifies Kant's point that perception for conceptual beings is theory-driven or assumption-driven. How it bears out Rand's assessment that Kant believed knowledge to be impossible is beyond me.

JR

Post 41

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 5:31pm

The Pompous Ass describes me as "a self-proclaimed intellectual giant." Perhaps he'll be so good as to remind me (and our readers) when and where exactly I ever called myself an "intellectual giant."

Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention to this humble request,

JR

Post 42

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:02pm

...the way reality is, irrespective of the perspective or context of any particular observer.

So in other words, we can never know reality, and our knowledge of it is merely subjective? In that case...

He merely stresses that our information about the world in which we live is, *by its nature*, partial and selective. Anyone who has ever seen a mirage in the desert knows what Kant is talking about. Our senses deceive us; we must apply reason and make inferences (on the basis of outside information -- information not immediately available to the senses that "see" the mirage) in order to reach a true understanding of the situation.

Reason is what integrates and makes sense of that data provided by our senses. If you(or Kant) vitiate our senses, then you ipso facto vitiate our reason. You can't have your reason without it's tools of cognition. When your metaphysical presumtion is that reality is unknowable you piss away your chance at any epistemology that is anything but subjective. So far I'm not seeing Ayn Rand as being wrong about Kant, but I'm willing to listen further.

P.S.-
People don't "see" the mirage, they SEE the mirage. Our senses are not deceiving us. Our ability to integrate might decieve us, but it is not our senses.

Post 43

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:10pm

Was Kant schitzophrenic? That seems like the only explanation that would make that apply.

---Landon

Post 44

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:11pm

Landon-
You're being to kind to Kant!

Post 45

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:12pm

Probably, but I was being literal.

---Landon

Post 46

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:26pm

Jody Allen Gomez's Post #42 is precisely what I expected from him -- utterly clueless, not just about Kant, but about how to think philosophically.

Instance: I wrote of "...the way reality is, irrespective of the perspective or context of any particular observer," and noted that our senses can tell us nothing about that. Gomez replied:

"So in other words, we can never know reality, and our knowledge of it is merely subjective?"

This is pathetic. Kant never said anything was "subjective," and neither did I.

Instance: "If you(or Kant) vitiate our senses," intones Gomez, "then you ipso facto vitiate our reason."

This is pathetic. Kant never "vitiated" anything, and neither did I.

If Gomez's reading comprehension is this poor, I'd suggest he devote himself to something other than philosophy -- sales, maybe.

JR

Post 47

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 7:03pm

Jeff-
My thoughts of you at this point are that you are a big, fucking academic air-head and through your ranting you believe that you are effectively perpetuating the myth of your own competence. Guess what, you are not. I am open to intellectual check-mate, and I'll battle to the end, but you have seen that you do not stand a logical chance so you have tossed the board into the air in a fit of rage at the crumbling of your own pretensions. That amounts to check-mate by proxy limp-dick. Gomez-1; Limp-0.

(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 9/06, 8:38pm)

Post 48

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 7:20pm

Jeff-
You're not getting away that easily though. I'm setting the board back up.

Did Kant say that we can know objective reality or did he say that we can not?

Post 49

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 7:21pm

Linz did some Jonathan-bashing:

"Jonathan, who can always be relied upon to crawl out from under his pomo rock whenever there's some Linz-bashing going on..."

I really don't mean to deprive you of any of your victimhood, Linz, but I've never "Linz-bashed," and I'm not even sure that I know what it means. Apparently it means that someone has disagreed with you, has had a good belly-laugh or two about your rage, or has occasionally mocked your frenzied, half-cocked, limp-dicked whining about other people's aesthetic tastes.

I think the simple fact that you keep crying about "Linz-bashing" goes a long way toward answering this thread's initial question.

J

Post 50

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 8:06pm

Well, it's nice to finally see some SOLO posters taking the advice I proferred here. Now, if only they could actually come up with some good insults, they'd be in business.

Post 51

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 8:28pm

For shit sake Riggenbach, drop the pompous attitude and debate!

This argument should be a Top 10 among Objectivists and yet it's getting screwed up by a second stringer like you! Punk Ass Gomez is kicking your ass and you seem to be doing nothing more than practicing your not so sly insults. Come on man, this could be so good! Debate!

Are you a Heavyweight? Then strap on the gloves and act like you have been here before!

And are you really surprised at the hard time your getting? You are debating Kant on an Objectivist website! Duh!

It is time for your arguments to cut to the bone, if they can. Do it or go home.

gw
(Third string debater & Dean Michael Gores copier!)

Post 52

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 8:39pm

Boo-hoo, "womanish". Nothing like using the word we use for the opposite sex as an insult. I'm not necessarily trying to be PC, no? I'm just... I don't think its a good idea to use a name that you use to refer to someone you value as an insult.

Post 53

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 8:41pm

And are you really surprised at the hard time your getting? You are debating Kant on an Objectivist website! Duh!

Sorry Gary it needed repeating.

---Landon

Post 54

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 8:47pm