I really like this girl and I see her once like every 4 weeks. She has a boyfriend anyway, but she needs to show up more often so I can just get over her
Zombiemambo on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
Man love is something I don't seem to get and maybe I'm not just cut out for real relationships.
My point is that existential is a categorisation. A category, not the philisophical term, but the same as "this is a bottle". And it is being applied, basically, to "this is too complicated to explain". Instead of merely accepting this, I'm rejecting it as too complicated and attempting to explain it. I'm willing to think about how to explain it, categorically. I'm not saying I'll have an answer, I'm simply saying "lets try".
What do you mean by contain? I don't accept that statement until you explain what you mean by contain.
You misunderstand. Kant, in his Critiquet of Pure Reason, sets up a Table of Judgments, from which he ingeniously deduces the Table of Categories. When one speak of predication, of A=B, one is speaking of the qualitas, the essentia, the whatness of a thing. The sky is blue. 2 + 2 = 4. These are predicates that are posited to the subject. Kant thought that predicates are either contained in the subject, and hence analytic (all bachelors are unmarried; all extant things are extended) or posited, relative, and hence synthetic (incompleteness theorems, all humans are animals.) These predications make up what we call reality. Hence, there are no unicorns in reality, because there are no real predicates that can be ascribed to them, nor can they be the subject of any real predicates. They have no relative propositions.
Kant uses the Modal Category to attack the ontological argument of God's existence. Basically, just because God can be thought of as necessary does not mean that God exists , because being is not a predicate. The Being of a thing is not an attribute of the being itself; it only stands in absolute relation to its Being. Existence has nothing to do with reality. Thus, existential judgments come from this -- humans have thinking. Thinking is always of beings and Being. Since being has nothing to do with categorical reality, Thinking (with a capital T, signifying the thinking of Dasein) deals with possibility and existentially.
Thus existentially cannot come from categorical actuality, because that would be committing a category error. That would be like extracting the "cause" of "2+2=4" or "Time is necessary"
I'm the alt of my infertile broodmates, Delicious Malformed Toad!. That's about it. They can't type on account of the webbed fingers, so they use me as a mouthpiece.
"as such the first heaven should be something eternal"
:?:
I think a better translation is "Therefore, the prime heaven must be eternal", which leads me to believe that you're translating some Aristotle.
"ωστε" is usually translated as "Therefore", though I guess "as such" is probably more strictly correct. "πρωτος" does mean "first", but it also means "prime", as in "ultimate", which is probably the meaning here. The verb is tricky since it is optative mood with "αν", which usually indicates potential optative, though that doesn't seem to make sense. I'm guessing on the "must" part. Unfortunately, my good text is not here, so I only have so much reference material here.
Premier kakos on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
"as such the first heaven should be something eternal"
:?:
I think a better translation is "Therefore, the prime heaven must be eternal", which leads me to believe that you're translating some Aristotle.
"ωστε" is usually translated as "Therefore", though I guess "as such" is probably more strictly correct. "πρωτος" does mean "first", but it also means "prime", as in "ultimate", which is probably the meaning here. The verb is tricky since it is optative mood with "αν", which usually indicates potential optative, though that doesn't seem to make sense. I'm guessing on the "must" part. Unfortunately, my good text is not here, so I only have so much reference material here.
Thanks! Yeah, it's the last book of the metaphysics. I need to get better with my relative clauses, because I kind of just go for the type of construction that pops into my head, without actually studying the different constructions, but rather just relying on what I memorized a long time ago. Basically, I'm at a point where I just need to get a copy of Smythe and read through it.
"as such the first heaven should be something eternal"
:?:
I think a better translation is "Therefore, the prime heaven must be eternal", which leads me to believe that you're translating some Aristotle.
"ωστε" is usually translated as "Therefore", though I guess "as such" is probably more strictly correct. "πρωτος" does mean "first", but it also means "prime", as in "ultimate", which is probably the meaning here. The verb is tricky since it is optative mood with "αν", which usually indicates potential optative, though that doesn't seem to make sense. I'm guessing on the "must" part. Unfortunately, my good text is not here, so I only have so much reference material here.
Thanks! Yeah, it's the last book of the metaphysics. I need to get better with my relative clauses, because I kind of just go for the type of construction that pops into my head, without actually studying the different constructions, but rather just relying on what I memorized a long time ago. Basically, I'm at a point where I just need to get a copy of Smythe and read through it.
Ah, Greek Grammar... how I love/hate you. But yeah, it is a good book to have hanging around. I hope I helped.
PS: If you have a Greek question, a PM is probably a better way of asking me.
Posts
Regular, or the fancy new throwback stuff?
She is awesome.
Pure distilled awesome.
If you could overdose and die from awesome, you'd probably want to stay away from her.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Depends on the kind of smoke one is speaking of.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Throwback. I wish we had Natural here, too. I want to try it.
I... see.
I've read that the Natural is disappointing.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The book was very good.
Wait there are other kinds?
You misunderstand. Kant, in his Critiquet of Pure Reason, sets up a Table of Judgments, from which he ingeniously deduces the Table of Categories. When one speak of predication, of A=B, one is speaking of the qualitas, the essentia, the whatness of a thing. The sky is blue. 2 + 2 = 4. These are predicates that are posited to the subject. Kant thought that predicates are either contained in the subject, and hence analytic (all bachelors are unmarried; all extant things are extended) or posited, relative, and hence synthetic (incompleteness theorems, all humans are animals.) These predications make up what we call reality. Hence, there are no unicorns in reality, because there are no real predicates that can be ascribed to them, nor can they be the subject of any real predicates. They have no relative propositions.
Kant uses the Modal Category to attack the ontological argument of God's existence. Basically, just because God can be thought of as necessary does not mean that God exists , because being is not a predicate. The Being of a thing is not an attribute of the being itself; it only stands in absolute relation to its Being. Existence has nothing to do with reality. Thus, existential judgments come from this -- humans have thinking. Thinking is always of beings and Being. Since being has nothing to do with categorical reality, Thinking (with a capital T, signifying the thinking of Dasein) deals with possibility and existentially.
Thus existentially cannot come from categorical actuality, because that would be committing a category error. That would be like extracting the "cause" of "2+2=4" or "Time is necessary"
gah you would be leaving!
I'll send it
Yes. the boring kind
Oh so like the straight ones.
I think a better translation is "Therefore, the prime heaven must be eternal", which leads me to believe that you're translating some Aristotle.
"ωστε" is usually translated as "Therefore", though I guess "as such" is probably more strictly correct. "πρωτος" does mean "first", but it also means "prime", as in "ultimate", which is probably the meaning here. The verb is tricky since it is optative mood with "αν", which usually indicates potential optative, though that doesn't seem to make sense. I'm guessing on the "must" part. Unfortunately, my good text is not here, so I only have so much reference material here.
Thanks! Yeah, it's the last book of the metaphysics. I need to get better with my relative clauses, because I kind of just go for the type of construction that pops into my head, without actually studying the different constructions, but rather just relying on what I memorized a long time ago. Basically, I'm at a point where I just need to get a copy of Smythe and read through it.
Ah, Greek Grammar... how I love/hate you. But yeah, it is a good book to have hanging around. I hope I helped.
PS: If you have a Greek question, a PM is probably a better way of asking me.
PPS: James Joyce sucks.