Renegade Public Forums
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Church of FSM  () 2 Votes
Re: Church of FSM [message #177586 is a reply to message #175124] Wed, 02 November 2005 21:03 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
warranto is currently offline  warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma:
General (2 Stars)
a priori or not, by the simple fact that he required to use a visual reference point to prove something, states that the experience was required prior to the proof being usable. He had to know that the hand had 5 fingers before the idea of the hand could be used. In short, a visual representation of some sort was still required to prove it. The "seeing" part if it is, in Kant's instance, "seeing with the mind's eye," so to speak.

hmm.. perhaps restricting this to "seeing" is a bit misleading. "Experience" is the idea that I'm trying to get across, however the seeing aspect of that is the one that seems to get the most credit, so I decided to go with that simplification. Don't take this too broadly in regards to the challenge though. I'm not saying that you can't use ANY experiences to assist, you just can't use them to directly prove the aspect. (example: referencing a dog would constitute something that is being used to represent a visual effect. However, refrencing the fact that every time you've done the equation you have reached that answer, while not a strong argument by itself, is valid. There is no representation of anything to prove a point.)


Keep in mind that I'm not disputing that Kant has proven it, rather he has quite nicely. However, the challenge is still whether it can be done without visual aids.

Experience is the idea of where knowing comes from. The phrase "seeing is believing" is a misnomer of sorts. It should actually state "experiencing is knowing". This is where a priori comes into effect. Whether it is knowable without appeal to a particular experience (keep in mind, the "appeal to an experience" is the important part. It has been experienced, but that experience is not used to prove <whatever>). However, the a priori argument does not apply here as he IS using the experience to prove his argument. He uses his experience of how his hand looks to create a basis for the number "five".

Note: this went through a number of edits before it was submitted. If something is not as coherent as could be, tell me and I'll fix it.
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: aircraftkiller..
Next Topic: Global Warming: Katrina, Rita, Wilma: Whats next?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Nov 16 05:29:25 MST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02549 seconds