Search Results
7/3/2025, 8:56:14 PM
>>24517304
>Toward ultimate metaphysical commitments: a readiness to adopt the most coherent and ethically fruitful hypothesis while acknowledging its provisional status.
Yup, Socrates was a Kantian.
>Toward ultimate metaphysical commitments: a readiness to adopt the most coherent and ethically fruitful hypothesis while acknowledging its provisional status.
Yup, Socrates was a Kantian.
6/15/2025, 7:24:17 PM
>>24467168
>I never claimed to be an "Aristotleanon". This is more delusional headcanon on your end.
I didn't claim that you CLAIMED to be an Aristotleanon you retard, you're invoking Aristotle and calling you a pseudo-Aristotleanon was appropriate. I have noticed that zoomers are not able to understand even simple irony, this is a good example. "but.... but... I never actually called myself an Aristotleanon!" Jesus Christ man.
>The point of the transcendental distinction is that some arguments are indemonstrable by the virtue of their subject matter.
Nope.
>I think you have a tenuous grasp on reality. You mix up posts, you mix up people, you mix up arguments, you invent quotes out of thin air, and now you're exhibiting some bizarre power fantasy as part of a desperate attempt to salvage your argument. Is all this really necessary?
You're arguing for the sake of arguing. You don't know anything about idealism and you don't even know Aristotle and Plato. It is very sad that philosophy attracts people like you. I can already foresee the pseud arguments you'll raise - you might argue about what the word 'split' means. You could quote passages in the Socratic dialogues where Plato does equate virtue and knowledge, even though he rejects this in others. You might quote something from the CPR about appearances vs. things in themselves and insist it's Cartesian dualism because you don't understand the CPR. You might pick on a typo and call me ESL. You might point out that σοφωτέρους is the comparative of σοφός and has nothing to do with σοφιστής and then give me shit for saying 'sophistos' by accident. (Who am I kidding you don't know any Greek).
We could be having a nice civilized discussion about a brilliant philosopher and instead it's nonstop bullshit and pseud posturing. This is nu/lit/. I'm sorry you're so aggressive and nasty, maybe you're a nicer person in real life. Who am I kidding I'm sure you're an insufferable loser. Your posts are nothing but internet slang and ignorance - yet you consider yourself to be very very knowledgable, well equipped to take on transcendental idealism even though you haven't read anything but the CPR (and you didn't understand a fucking word of it by the way, whatever you may think to the contrary).
I don't enjoy the eristics, but as Fichte said "I might well have allowed every incompetent bumbler to proceed peacefully along his own path had they not forced me to clear a space for myself by exposing their incompetence."
>I never claimed to be an "Aristotleanon". This is more delusional headcanon on your end.
I didn't claim that you CLAIMED to be an Aristotleanon you retard, you're invoking Aristotle and calling you a pseudo-Aristotleanon was appropriate. I have noticed that zoomers are not able to understand even simple irony, this is a good example. "but.... but... I never actually called myself an Aristotleanon!" Jesus Christ man.
>The point of the transcendental distinction is that some arguments are indemonstrable by the virtue of their subject matter.
Nope.
>I think you have a tenuous grasp on reality. You mix up posts, you mix up people, you mix up arguments, you invent quotes out of thin air, and now you're exhibiting some bizarre power fantasy as part of a desperate attempt to salvage your argument. Is all this really necessary?
You're arguing for the sake of arguing. You don't know anything about idealism and you don't even know Aristotle and Plato. It is very sad that philosophy attracts people like you. I can already foresee the pseud arguments you'll raise - you might argue about what the word 'split' means. You could quote passages in the Socratic dialogues where Plato does equate virtue and knowledge, even though he rejects this in others. You might quote something from the CPR about appearances vs. things in themselves and insist it's Cartesian dualism because you don't understand the CPR. You might pick on a typo and call me ESL. You might point out that σοφωτέρους is the comparative of σοφός and has nothing to do with σοφιστής and then give me shit for saying 'sophistos' by accident. (Who am I kidding you don't know any Greek).
We could be having a nice civilized discussion about a brilliant philosopher and instead it's nonstop bullshit and pseud posturing. This is nu/lit/. I'm sorry you're so aggressive and nasty, maybe you're a nicer person in real life. Who am I kidding I'm sure you're an insufferable loser. Your posts are nothing but internet slang and ignorance - yet you consider yourself to be very very knowledgable, well equipped to take on transcendental idealism even though you haven't read anything but the CPR (and you didn't understand a fucking word of it by the way, whatever you may think to the contrary).
I don't enjoy the eristics, but as Fichte said "I might well have allowed every incompetent bumbler to proceed peacefully along his own path had they not forced me to clear a space for myself by exposing their incompetence."
Page 1