0
   

Need some critical responses to a philosophical argument.

 
 
Cyclops
 
Reply Fri 28 Jun, 2013 12:35 pm
I have a philosophical argument. It can be found at Edit (Moderator):Link Removed
This is a work in metaphysics.
It provides an answer to the challenge of Immanuel Kant, as voiced in his critical philosophy.
The premise of the argument has been published in a philosophy journal.
It is a serious work but it is given in the form of a philosophical argument. Hence, it is open to debate, and critical refutation. Readers can either agree or disagree with the argument. What is clear to my thinking, and understanding of Kant, is that this does not constitute an invalid, a priori, ontological argument. It falls in line with Kant's demand for objective validity, thus it is different from other a priori arguments. Kant's demand for objective validity is clarified in Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," in Section II, under the heading: "Of the Highest Principle of all Synthetical Judgments."

Kant speaks in this section of synthetic, a priori judgments, and in the context of what he calls a transcendental apperception.

The argument at the above cite is a synthetic cognition a priori, from premise to conclusion. The argument is that the four a priori principles that it expounds follow necessarily.

Of course, one can read these principles and attack them on the grounds that they do not follow, necessarily. This wound demand that a counterargument be able to show that the principles are not in fact, a priori.

I will say no more, until I receive some feedback. Thanks ahead of time to those who might wish to respond.
 
Cyclops
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Jun, 2013 02:43 pm
@Cyclops,
For a way to get to the cite without providing the precise link the moderators fear might jeopardize their integrity; members can always practice their right to search the Internet, by looking for causal arguments; and more precisely, a causal argument for the existence of a Supreme Being.

Let's see now if the moderators think there is something nefarious about asking forum members to do a simple search.
Butrflynet
 
  4  
Reply Fri 28 Jun, 2013 03:29 pm
@Cyclops,
http://able2know.org/about/tos/

B. The Postings shall be used only in a non-promotional manner. You shall not, without the express approval of able2know, distribute or otherwise publish in the service any content which contains (i) offers to buy or sell goods or services; (ii) advertising; or (iii) commercial solicitations of any kind. Examples of prohibited solicitations include efforts to obtain funds or services from members and attempts to recruit members to participate in research studies, other websites, polls, surveys or lawsuits. Promotional postings are not limited to commercial promotions and all are equally forbidden. You may not post links to your site or use able2know for promotional purposes (both commercial and non-commercial). The determination of what consitutes a violation of this rule is determined exclusively by able2know.

E. If you are discussing or recommending a product or service with which you have a professional affiliation, you must state that affiliation. The service is not a broadcast medium for advertisements. able2know reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to remove messages that it deems to be advertisements by nature of their content, format, tone or use in the service. Members disregarding this policy may have parts or all of their access to the service restricted or removed without notice.
0 Replies
 
Cyclops
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 28 Jun, 2013 05:39 pm
Why so Paranoid?

Underlining and using bold case is the same thing as screaming at someone to get their attention. It's also an insult. We are not a bunch of children here who need to be screamed at, are we?

I've just sent a question in to 'contact us.'

It's asking where the guidelines/rules are so I can read them all and familiarize myself with them. By attaching the above rather than e-mailing some information on where I can find the rules you're creating a very negative, poor impression of yourselves as moderators of this forum. There are other sites that are much more flexible, and clearly more understanding, and tolerant of their members, not to mention very helpful.

You're simply being unnecessarily RUDE! Shall not ... etc., it's as though your citing the 10 Commandments, and threatening to send the wrath of God down on any infidel with the audacity to break them. Where in the hell then, are these Commandments from God? I'd like the read all of them; or is one's permission to enter the Holy of Holy's only for sanctified High Priests, like yourselves?
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Jun, 2013 07:27 pm
@Cyclops,
The link I included takes you to the site's terms of service. You'll also find links to the terms of service and the site's privacy policy at the end of every page. Coincidentally, they are in the same spot where you found the "contact us" link. Wink
Cyclops
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Jun, 2013 10:56 pm
@Butrflynet,
Butrfynet:

Thanks. I managed to find the rules and read over them. I think the rules should be posted up on the heading, alongside Forums, Groups; that way new members could spot more easily that there are indeed rules in place. I had to snoop around and get more familiar with the site before I stumbled into them (too late).

What are the chances of loosening things up for those of us who do have philosophy websites, or links to interesting philosophy sites that are educational. For instance, I belong to another philosophy forum, and came across a link posted by a member for the King's College podcasts of philosophy without any gaps, and it's a free service, and very professional. I don't know what percentage of visitors/members are actually working philosophers, or students, but there may be some, and I for one would welcome access to their works. For myself, I contribute to philosophy journals, and find this prohibition about links to other philosophy sites too strict. Also, if you visit my site you'll find my work fully published, and it is freely available to anyone. There is no advertising, only useful links, like the one to the "Review of Metaphysics," and a few sites where people can find complete on-line versions of Kant's "Prolegomena" and "Critique of Pure Reason." I think the forum should indeed be moderated carefully, but at the same time, more open.

At the same time as writing this, I however, posted something to the moderators concerning an advertisement I stumbled across, incidentally to a site selling sex toys. This is blatantly against your rules. So perhaps the site isn't as closely scrutinized after all.
0 Replies
 
Aetherian
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2018 06:05 am
Metaphysics means beyond Physics, and leads into matters of spirituality whether you like it or not. The orthodox school of metaphysics have tried to teach it, but the foundation was not fulfilled until George King( 1919-1997) and added to Theosophy of Blavatsky and Alice Bailey. The tenets are in the Hindu philosophies and Yoga. Some of it is quite mystical making traditional Christianity showing errors and omissions, like the fear of Hell and heresy imposed. Karma and reincarnation were not taught , in spite of some references in the New Testament.
God is not to be conceived as an old man judging your sins. The Deity as such or whatever you like to call It is above all human attributes. The highest being in the Sun for life in the solar system. There is no judgement other than imposed by the Higher Self.
The Love is the Creative Force, and woman the faint aspect of the goddess
which should ensure respect.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Need some critical responses to a philosophical argument.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/07/2021 at 12:27:53