I don't understand when people don't understand this. :wink: — Tom Storm

I realize, belatedly, that my remark could be taken as dismissive. I have not had that particular experience.

Why not? I ask myself. There certainly were plenty of times when the Reaper could have collected you/me for a train squashed penny.

When the material hit my fan, I wanted another life. Sometimes, they seemed interchangeable.

Yes, that has caused me to think it is a parody.

I’ve never claimed to be a libertarian. — NOS4A2

So, what does the name mean to you? There are your posts about denying a "social contract".

I understand the decision to leave when suffering displaces all the good things about living.

I don't understand what it means to imagine that one does not exist or wish that one was not born. Those are activities that I have had no part in. I prefer to imagine events within I do participate.

You repeat the same stories and when they are challenged in detail, you retreat until you can proffer them again.

You support a self-described authoritarian whose exercise of a "unitarian Executive" contradicts your claim to being a Libertarian who views all of government to be an infringement upon your freedom.

You often point to the corruption of the global system of transactions but never acknowledge your team's role in that regard.

You copy and paste X tweets like you were working for the man.

It is market research.

You can't "trigger the Libs" unless you know what sets them off. Back in the heyday of Breitbart and Red State, participants would boast of visiting other sites to do that sort of thing. They have become more careful since then.

If I am right, it is much easier to point out to Republicans how their government is not moving toward their goals. — AmadeusD

How do you see this observation in the context of Land's essay?

Has anyone here had any sort of success, and what did they do and how did they do it? — tim wood

New York City ran him out of town by stopping doing business with him. It took a bit of time because of the lawsuits and the game of playing competing contractors against one another. The last banks gave up on him and he left town.

The same process will happen again.

The presumption that I seek only easy answers and have not read a lot is a low effort response on your part.

So far, I have no reason to believe that you have actually read the Critique of Pure Reason.

I was asking you to support your claims by quoting CPR.

I am familiar with those authors' participation in the conversation.

Shall I take your answer to be no in regard to the text of the CPR?

Isn't the whole content of CPR about experience, its objects, and how reasoning and judgements and concepts are related to them? — Corvus

Is there a place in the CPR where "experience" has a self-evident role such as you describe?

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Nothing NOS4A2 says is worthwhile to engage in. It's uncritical Trump worship. — Benkei

I don't think it is worship. His one consistent goal has been to normalize outrageous and immoral statements and behavior. The product is not aligned to a policy agenda outside of what the Trumpster specifically promotes. Such an articulation would run afoul of his view of the state as something an individual is conned into believing. The fortress of solipsism can never be assailed.

My proposal is that listening to people is powerful. Sanders will not be running for President again. Everybody knows that.

Let me put the matter in a different register. The Agricultural Industry voted for Trump by a large margin. They are and will be receiving direct damage from the new policies. They backed a player who does not even understand their situation. Realizing that is more important than advancing any policy.

He has done it before. I don't understand your observation as a counter to mine.

The Bernie move needs to be seen in the context of the GOP being afraid to talk to the electorate that put them in office. The actions being taken by the present administration are so detrimental to the well-being of citizens that people want to talk about it. It does not mean that these people will suddenly want a form of polity that Sanders has championed during his career.

Other politicians are thinking of holding similar events. I hope they don't get too promotional.

I have read two of those and a portion of another.

The point I was making regards standards of citation. If, for instance, you want to cite from The Phenomenology of Spirit, translated by Miller, you could say that, and people would be able to find pages on that basis. If it is a less known book, one can find either a vendor or free text version to point to.

For example, here is the above-mentioned book at a vendor.

I see Science of Logic on your pile. That is quite a different book from Logic, Being Part One of the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences I have owned the latter book for decades and have had only brief glimpses of the other.

/rant on the value of good citations.

I am not arguing for his system. I left that long ago.

But I can argue what is an accurate account of it.

Kant kind of just rests on morality and says "let's 1) be moral, 2) do science to figure out the assumed (critique of judgment) to be designed world. — Gregory

I sense that you do get the scope of conscience in the Protestant rejection of authority outside the voice of reason or faith. Kant advocates for a specific code of conduct as difficult as many others that have been proposed.

But we were talking about Kant versus Hegel and their differences. Is that not worthy of clarification?

Hegel tries to create thought spaces where we can satisfy our desires for complete systamization — Gregory

My general impression of Hegel, as a psychologist (him, not me), is that all this stuff we think about is directly related to our experiences while being people.

That is not to deny a desire for complete understating but Hegel's approach in Lordship and Bondage is a sharp departure from Kant preaching universal peace.

You are asking two questions there. And you are assuming that they are necessarily just one.

So, I could pursue each one of them. But how is it my job to separate what you claim as a thesis to be what stands together? Why should I think that is true?

I, too, am only a learner.

In asking for clear references, I am not questioning your experience of a text but asking for a means to accurately share it. Otherwise, our swift ostensive gestures leave us talking to ourselves.

Which Hegelian text are you referring to? There are at least three your description could be pointing to.

How about quoting some text so that the context can be appreciated?

I support your effort to become persnickity in the use of terms.

Kant is pretty darn specific in Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysic regarding what he supports and objects to in Hume.

My observation applies more to comparisons made afterwards.

I'd compare "Faculty" to "Category" in Kant, though -- not so much that reason itself is a faculty but faculties (categories) are a part of Reason. — Moliere

I read Kant's insistence upon the intuitions as not a claim upon the limits of knowledge but acceptance of a structure we always use. The objection to Hume is about the range of options being entertained, a luxury not available to all.

Perhaps so.

I will leave you be.

Unlike Plato?

Edit to add: Here we are, repeating the discussion of four years ago.

That leaves out the "if at all" which consumed much of that discussion.

What was his (Plato's) view on it? — Corvus

A close reading of the Phaedo is a start. There is a discussion put forward by Fooloso4 that frames the different reactions to the text made here and elsewhere. All the opinions expressed 4 years ago are regularly repeated here since then.

I do not want to revive any of that in this discussion because that would hijack this OP.

Bernie is showing how it is done with the withdrawal of the GOP from its people.

Are you saying there is no means to compare actions by nations because they all get wrapped in political messaging?

I have objected to crappy things the U.S. has done as well as many other nations. If there is no other measure than messaging and agenda, there does not seem to be a point to judgement at all.

After considering the essay as a whole, the argument assumes all consent is manufactured and that there are only two producers of that sort of thing in the market.

That argument does not touch the common "enlightenment" value of seeking a less cruel environment. The invitation to abnegate the commons for the sake of preventing cruelty is being measured by what the thesis proposes does not exist.

It is a brilliant bit of sophistry.

A "no" from what?

The claims made by the Administration?

No, it isn't. Are you American? — frank

It is rare to have a position argued so forcibly.

I see the claims but not the documents supporting them. You know, the sort that Congress would demand.

All of his cuts are available for anyone to see yet no one can choose one that was a bad idea to remove. — NOS4A2

Where is all this information sharing happening?

Plato addressed that better than I can.

Or you misunderstood the context of expressing my limited understanding of our experience.