I didn't know that. Ha, ha, ha, ha...

The concepts of pure understanding "are critiqued", should I say analyzed, by the essential claim of judgement on the various conceived notions about pure reason. Where as anyhow, the pure judgements "are critiquable" in the otehr aesthetics book, Kant's critique of pure judgement. But the particular judgement of interest for specific categories was so commonly the apodictic judgment. Categorically there exists in time passing (ha, ha, ha....) through intuitive space the assorting of categories in reasonably judged sequence: problematical, assertory, and APODiCTIC. That allows the deduction of the principles of understanding to be really an experience of Life worth Judgment.

Anchor books; Doubleday and Company.

 

Now I didn't know this. Some scripture to some people: call it the scripture to the word of 'Natural Selection'. This existing pure judgment of the World for 'the applied poverty of agnosticism' is well (much like reading Hegel for scriptures of the negated determination for the subject in itself by objects ' within the heavens of Truth'; I like this kind of scripture too) documented by Dawkins actually respecting the whole God hypothesis. I just want the poor agnosticism to make Natural Selection happy.

How does the pure judgment of aesthetic worldliness make the TAP (temporary agnostic principle) separate from PAP (permanent agnostic principle)? It is I suppose scripture to write: "why... Agnosticism is some appropriate stance on many scientific questions such as what caused the end Permian extinction, the greatest mass extinction in fossil history." For that manner any end should have profound explanations to judge either a priori or empirically to seek for the scientific evidence for. Maybe after all the empirical requirement for an End could belong to PAP instead of TAP. Maybe the wholistic dialectical principle for an end is real; and science can re-question the lack of controversy realms for a new judging in Apodicticness. Does a controversy have to exist in the repeated same regions of space and time? Much like continental drift may have turned out to be too much of a dogma. Truly the temporary is where Dawkins looks for the defined term Natural Selection to re-occur. TAP he looks for determining the ' either God or other dogma' category exist for the life worthy of judgment. PAP, I'm telling you' all is for deduction of concepts for new knowledge. It's just a prejudice no one wants the knowledge of God for such a deduction.

Some would even go to the Canon of the Catholic Church for a concept of God, and consist the a priori synthetic judgment for the End all and fear of ultimatum. Will 'He' punish me severely or not? Life is naturally selected like judgment from the beauty of curing oneself of disease. Is beauty such a judgment to satisfy for what is within towards the future end: still waiting to be satisfied. Actually we can't judge that sort of thing. That's why probability occurs: we suddenly pounce instead as scientists for evidence at the PAP.

Just probability for the successful judgment of Beauty or enjoyed (so-called acquired) taste because of moral behaviour in respect of 'free will' at 'God'. PAP should for Kant even permit the corresponding of the God hypothesis to a auxiliary reflected on free will hypothesis.

 

Well me make judgments: some as ourselves, some as the knowledge for the other person, for the knowledge we were taught by other people.


From Kant thus is to wonder: "the deduction of the principles of understanding to be really an experience of Life worth Judgment." So how did we get to the judgements, the moral judgment of categorical imperative? Healthy or unhealthy ways?

Anybody interested in lambasting me? Can one seriously in a transcendentally idealistic way "google" oneself? Know thyself was a judgment to Kant, but not to Plato.

 

Remembering the word for Kant could not be a matter of judgment. But remembering the judgement of being immoral with it made for the judgement of self realizable only in the hypothesis that God exists. Imagine: unstable applied to dynamics: God knows I am wrong.

 

Last but not least: can God be this immoral?


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/0...=maing-grid7|canada|dl1|sec1_lnk1&pLid=428924


:daisy:

 

I don't understand the overall current of what you're trying to say here. Also, maybe you should define a few of the terms you use, such as TAP and PAP.

 

TAP -- temporary agnosticism in practice; PAP -- permanent agnosticism in principle.

The first concerns the problem of moral trust in a person's choices at the moment in making an observation; the second is the problem of how Kant had the dubious distinction of having the "critique" attitude. How is there morality for concern of the categorical attitude in general? Most interesting is the question for God's existence.

In the authority over our ultimately autonomous ethics why is there a God? To Kant and most scientists (because a judgement has to be made for comparison with the other experimental results) there needs to be a formal understanding of scientific method to know at base a synthetic judgment of a priori that a hypothesis make sense in common trust. So, thus, the Ethics of moral choice belongs to Beliefs we have in ourselves; to beliefs we trust from others.

That's good enough. So some didn't have to make an apodictic judgment(?), did they just trust the scientific method ad verbatum for being mere technicians?

I think it is a combination of the two.

 

I am here I must have legitimacy.

I have confused pain and pleasure and been disillusioned by my choices. I make mistakes in perceptual modelling. Mom told me no.

Chemical bonds are devotional in intensity.

This question doesn't go anywhere for me. The whole defines the part but the part does not define the whole.

Why is there an ego or sense of separate self, the evidence of the body. The self, a whole, calling the body it's voice.

 

Scientists as of being at their profession have a moral self-consciousness. That means that they are capable of disagreeing over their parts as to the whole which must be somewhat understood in that "evidence of the body", i.e. the generalized body of Knowledge.
History will progress to the point that we (according to Kant) will understand everything we need to Know.

 

Kant is only meaningful to me in the sense that what is so can't be harmed.

Men as of being at their profession believe in the existence of unique moral constitutions and this is the essence of vanity. For this dupe we can't see the whole by trying to find equity in it's parts but from the perspective of wholeness the parts are incapable of disagreement.