Still the basic premise of all this, if I understand it correctly ... is the rejection of a synthetic logic construct of your own creation.
In that you have removed Kants (supposed) notions of a "fair deity" that plays by knowable rules (as defined by observable nature), and inserted a parallel notion of flexible rules that require evidence to show that an alternative etiquette of observation may lead to (currently) orthogonal views as truth.
What the fuck is ultimately wrong with that?
I am trying to say that perhaps it would be more palatable if you removed all philosophic references to Kant and any one else ... and whilst showing your working (heh) just call the philosophy ... yours.
The reasoning of truth is as fluid as contemporary discoveries. Feynman teaches us that much at least.
If we don't discover things that challenge our thinking models there really is no point living in an absurd universe.
Re: kumite.
Still the basic premise of all this, if I understand it correctly ... is the rejection of a synthetic logic construct of your own creation.
In that you have removed Kants (supposed) notions of a "fair deity" that plays by knowable rules (as defined by observable nature), and inserted a parallel notion of flexible rules that require evidence to show that an alternative etiquette of observation may lead to (currently) orthogonal views as truth.
What the fuck is ultimately wrong with that?
I am trying to say that perhaps it would be more palatable if you removed all philosophic references to Kant and any one else ... and whilst showing your working (heh) just call the philosophy ... yours.
The reasoning of truth is as fluid as contemporary discoveries.
Feynman teaches us that much at least.
If we don't discover things that challenge our thinking models there really is no point living in an absurd universe.
/me shuts up now.