If they draft you will you go with the men or women battalions?

How do you know what adults know?

Just because there are different ways the male and female form can be does not mean that there is not truly two forms and it certainly doesn't there are more then two gender identities

Adults know certain things instinctively. Philosophy is about debating higher opaque questions that people have long pondered about

People claim now that their inner animal is their identity. What's your argument against them?

Also, I can tell one someone has committed a crime. You got a problem if you can't

You are asking me to prove something obvious. It's not my fault you have a psychological disorder. Maybe you'll start claiming you are a gorilla and ask for proof your not. Read my last post on souls above

What if I sleep with a 14 year old and tell the police "my ID says I'm 35 but I identity as a 14 year old so I did nothing wrong". People need to contemplate where their ideas lead to

The soul is not something you can pinpoint with science. With Hegel's logic, for example, two terms of a dialectic sublate each other, which just means something new EMERGES that is greater than the parts. Our identifies are greater than the parts of the body and you have, for whatever reason there may be, either a male soul or a female soul. You can't change this latter in life. If your body is male you soul likely is too, and so on for the female form

The soul is the identity of the whole biological organism of a human

The new generation doesn't like rules. That what complete existentialism where they can decide what they are in nature and decide for themselves what is true or false. It's just immaturity

Do you choose to be whatever gender you are? No, you believe you are born like that. Many non-binary people feel the same. — Bradaction

Truth doesn't care about what you feel. I know that I am male because my soul is male. A person either has a male soul or a female soul. That is reality and no construction can make it otherwise

If someone can decide for themselves if their essence is male or female or a combination, why can't they decide their own age?

Just saying

The Platonists will certainly jump all over you up for that. — Mww

I've never thought of Platonist as Kantian but maybe they are. Does...:

Matter=phenomena

and

Ideas=noumena?

I loosely think this way but I wonder if they are an exact correlation.

And did Kant read Plato?

The OP, however, specifies Kantian fundamentals. People been elaborating on them ever since, to be sure. — Mww

Kant had his intuitions and his guiding imagination. The imagination was governed by understanding the the higher power of reason/intellect. (knowledge was gained from all the above)

The successors of Kant went from Reinhold to Fitche to Schelling to Hegel to Schopenhauer. They all thought there were aspects of intellect that Kant failed to take into consideration and so they tried to build on Kant with newer, more exotic ideas. I think all their attempts are great but they do not contradict what Kant laid down. Their many pages and arguments return back to what Kant said every time

As long as someone keeps their evidence-free, faith-based, merely private beliefs which makes them happy to themselves, that will make the rest of us happy, and we'll then have a win-win kumbaya shared commons happening. Keep private beliefs without public warrant private; make private assertions public without public warrants disrespects, or assaults, private/public assertions with public warrants; so one ought to avoid doing that. An epistemic imperative (WK Clifford, Peirce, Dewey, et al) — 180 Proof

Good post. Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and Kierkegaard has to sense to know "the doctrines of Christianity have no proof whatsoever for them" but they recognized they had value if people used them to feel good, enjoy the stories, and increase the spiritual and artistic abilities of their minds. IF however people use faith to convinced themselves that bad arguments are good arguments and start an apologetic campaign from this, they have only themselves to blame if their arguments get jumped and beat up

Very interesting. Kant truly started philosophy imo

faith-base thinkers are stupid people and stero-typing them as low intelligent individuals. — SteveMinjares

They don't use their intellects. They have poor introspective and honesty because they are trying to have faith and this bubbly faith they bring up in themselves colors their ability to think about their arguments objectively.. I look at their arguments on the screen with the sense that "these people are just stupid" and it is not that they were born with low IQ, it is really because they so want to have faith so bad that bad arguments look good to them. It's like a starving person looking at some insect infected food and thinking "this looks delicious". Christian emphasis on faith will alone make their argumentations suspect. Kant was at least honest with all these matters

Universality is talked much about by Kant's successors

So can we say that objects in themselves could be perceived by us through our space/time intuitions had it not been for transcendental additions we necessarily make to them (causality, ect,)?

I engage with the argument and logic parts of these questions. In politics you have to take into account both sides

Yes

Yes the Ideas/Forms are in things and in the mind. But is that all there is or is there true matter?

usa

They are not empirical but are either the noumena of the world or the noumena of our minds. In either case they are transcendental

Jesus said God abandoned him on the cross. He became an atheist as he died and might have been saved. I hope for immortality and want people to be saved. There is a huge divide in my country between pro-choicers and Christians. Both movements I hope to see end and this because they are corrupt

That's not God. That looks like my friend who is dying of lung cancer (well, back in his good days)

It sees itself bestow necessity and universality on noumena. Whether the noumena of us is the noumena of the world is the Pandora box question opened by little Kant way back then

Atheists can have faith in false things. All faith will make weak arguments seem strong. That's my point.

The mind bestows all upon the noumena, but the relationship between the mind apart from phenomena to the noumena of the world is the question Reinhold, Fitche, and the other Germans tried to work out after Kant laid the foundation down for them.

Atheists think rationally while Christians juice up their minds with their emotional minds so that they can't see when they have no argument which could defend their faith and their behavior in matters of religion and philosophy. Their narcissistic beliefs get them so drunk that they don't know a good argument from a bad one and common sense becomes impossible ("Jesus is coming out of the sky on a white horse. I KNOW this is true")

Not everybody has guilt problems because you can clean up your karma if you desire. Christianity is all about religious tingles designed by their art and writings to (temporarily) ease guilt. The guilt comes back worse because Christian "joy" is a type of sinful wallowing in one's own perceived specialness

Since nearly every Christian alive has a guilt complex and uses the religion for childish tingling sensations that make they feel as if they are actually good people, I would say they have nothing to teach anyone about ethics or religion

He said in the OP he is Christian because it gives him tingles. That's building your house on sand if there ever was such a thing

There are many arguments that show God is not needed as an explanation. There are arguments against Christianity. It is legit to rehearsh these because this is a forum for philosophy. Christianity is like Nazism. It's doctrines are bad and most of its member hurt themselves with that religion. All you want is feelings. Those will betray you

Even most Christians will say that having faith in order to feel fuzzy is sin

And sometimes trying to find happiness can be immoral

Because at least half of theist push their beliefs on others

First, objects don't have potentiality. They have actuality in a form which can change to something else. That doesn't mean they have potentiality within them as an attribute.

Second, there is no contingency or necessity in objects in the sense you think. A balloon can be popped so there is one of it's contingencies. A sidewalk will kill me if I drop to it from 10 floors. These are contingencies and necessities known in science. Your ideas on them are abstract and unprovable

We were discussing the God as explained by Bartricks

How do you know your hair is not Aristotle? Your position is against common sense because your God is without any rules or even common sense.. You believe is a fire of rule-less will who can make and sustain any contradiction whatsoever to infinity