| | Oh my goodness, I can't stop laughing!
I was so pressed for time on my last login that I had only that one to post.
Certainly no intention on my part to throw a monkey wrench on this relationship (which has blossomed on the Economics board, of all boards). You go on your merry ways gentlemen, I'm not one to spoil your fun.
Kant is a seductive mistress to those with a rationalist bent - "Pure Reason" is bliss to the innocent. Alas "Pure Reason" does not exist. The noumenon/phenomenon distinction provides a neat divider to organize the messy universe. Until you read that last sentence again - it just asserted something knowable about the unknowable.
Rick, if you're trying to find arsenic for your syphilis, you may have come to the right place (ok, ok... penicillin). Being labeled a Kantian is a curse among objectivists, but it doesn't bar therapy. Should I monicker you 'Kid Kant' in return for your 'Mr. C'? 'Kid Kant' has a nice ring to it.
I did insist that you be more "honest" on more than one occasion. Apparently, I was the only one who noticed. About blaming my big mouth... well, Ed inquired, and there's that objectivist virtue of honesty, so...
[It's not like you can hide that fact for long, especially around here.]
Sarah, that was a most cinematic zwischenzug: You sure could use such talent in... film.
Speaking about that "science documentary"... since biology is one of the hard sciences, it would indeed be possible to start with dry material, livening it up, then end with profound dialogue... Galtspeak anyone?
Oh I forgot, we're already having another soap episode (unfortunately, nothing to do with this particular "Les Affaire").
|
|
