User Controls

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. ...
  5. 11120
  6. 11121
  7. 11122
  8. 11123
  9. 11124
  10. 11125
  11. ...
  12. 11466
  13. 11467
  14. 11468
  15. 11469

Posts by The Self Taught Man

  1. The way you said that was still creepy.
  2. It's Darkie, alright.
    Stop it.
  3. Wassup, Darkie. Sorry for the stuff that was said way back. I know now that I was in the wrong.
    It's ok, bro. I don't even remember that AT ALL. Haha, I'm sorry but I'm not Darkhunter. Well ok, I'm actually happy about that but yea I'm not...
  4. The machine may already exist.


    It's called drugs.
  5. Tell her to start posting at least semi-regularly here. I need her to see how I've CHANGED for the WORST.


    She's sworn off the internet, unfortunately. Now all she does is Pinterest.
  6. I "rescued" a mongoose that was killing my bunnies i.e. i didn't beat it to death with a shovel after it was caught in my snare.
  7. So all empiricists, by definition, don't think we need cogito ergo sum to have knowledge about the world. They all posit other means by which we can derive knowledge from ideas (objects of consciousness, or "experiences").

    I believe you have are mistaken regarding the nature of Descartes' rationalism, what empiricism claims regarding knowledge, and where Kant stood on the issue.

    Empiricism claims only that knowledge cannot be gained without experience. This is true, but it neither contradicts nor does away with the need for cogito. In a nutshell, the empiricist "dispute" is that the ability to arrive to cogito in the first place is shaped and made possible by experience, and that we get our knowledge and ability to get to that point before we get to it. As Locke said, upon birth, the mind is a tabula rasa, and it is furnished with information and our ability to reason, by experience. This does not remove the validity of cogito though, which at its core is the claim that there is only one feature of existence that we cannot doubt (or rather do away with) if we apply pure reason, and that is the fact that we are thinking.

    Empiricism does not take issue with this, because for all you know, your senses themselves could be being spooked by Spagett! tricked by the evil Demon, we could be a brain in a vat and so forth. It is the basis of modern philosophy, and almost no philosopher that I'm aware of takes issue with that core idea. What empiricism does take issue with is what Descartes said further about the derivation of "knowledge" (primarily mathematics) from "innate ideas", for as stated above, these ideas, they argue, are themselves formed from the information we have received from our sense. It is silly to say, for example, that we are simply born with the logical capacity to internally produce mathematical concepts, because "god" just gifted them to us, so to speak.

    Kant's work with regards to this was to try to reconcile rationalism and empiricism. Kant specifically accepts that the mind and it's abilities to reason fundamentally still spring from cogito, and still claims that the mind was the center of our knowledge, and the "impressions" from its interfacing with the world are how we gain a "semblance" of knowledge, much like how we can know the silhouette of an object by its shadow. But to account for both our senses and the fact that we are receiving this data, to be interpreted by the mind, we must accept (still based on our ability to think, however) that there must be a mind, some sort of external world in the first place within which our mind must reside and from which it will receive these impressions (e.g. even if we are a brain in a vat, the vat must exist in some form, and be somehow within an external world or space or so on, unless you're willing to argue that the mind itself internally generates these impressions, which I don't think anyone does), and that there must be some sort of source for this external world that must exist outside of our brain (Kant's conceptual "god'), because otherwise we run again into the contradiction that cogito raises to base itself upon.

    As such, these are all extrusions of the idea that all perception and knowledge must begin from the raw fact that we cannot doubt that we are thinking.

    Footnote: lanny, I'm not being allowed to access my PMs or make threads (which is why I'm not posting this in the Help forum). I receive this message:

  8. eyes dont set too long on the cat food tin in the sink that his wrists are just begging for

    So many things you post work out as great "send to your ex-gf to get back at them"isms, ableism, athiesm

    autism
  9. tee-hee

    I flagged this post

    CHUD MOLESTER
  10. Oneiros was funny, too. That idiotic IRC-cop. He thought he could ban anything, until he met me. The stupid fuck was ripping his own hair out, while I ran circles around him kicking his dumb ass in at every turn. Good times.

    neildegrassetyson.killyourself
  11. The minimum lvl of entertainment derived is enough to distract him from how pathetic and unfulfilling his existence is for long enough that his eyes dont set too long on the cat food tin in the sink that his wrists are just begging for
  12. I like this multi media posting platform you're using with the audio and all but I'm still not listening/reading until you give me your fathers maiden name
  13. The fact you post on here means 99% of the above is bullshit

    Not really, that says more about you and how you view yourself/this website more than me. I guess the only thing close to exaggeration is the implication that I fuck more bar skanks than I actually do. I'm better at picking up waitresses or friends girlfriends. My life is pretty stupid/sweet though
  14. lurk moar
  15. thiamine makes it my bitch. I drank 3 or 4 shots of tequila and 1 beer and I don't even feel buzzed because I drank that while consuing a full rack of ribs with macaroni and cheese and corn bread. Maybe I am a nigger. I was 2 peoples birthdays. I shall drink no more tonight. Today I fucked my girlfriend 4 times until I felt I made a positive impact in her emotional well being because I'm emotionally retarded and don't know how to make people feel good without substances or penises. '


    Bill Krozby is not a real drinker because he pukes lol what a faggot, thats your food saying your body is too gay for it.
  16. im fapping to the sickest stuff i can find

    im going to break the matrix
  17. I hope you're being sarcastic cos your life sounds sad as fuck. how have you not had a job before when ur 25 ffs.

    So I take it you're never going to retire? Or are you looking forward to a time when you can finally do so?
  18. Hey, Falcon.. you were there in #totse SlashNet when I fucked over that anti-free-speech irc admin goon pal of o_rly's, eh? That Bazl dude? Remember that? lol I kept coming in with hundreds of accounts from all different IPs from all over the world, simultaneously, and every account had "Bazl Is A Gay" somewhere in the name, and I kept it up for days until he finally was forced to call in o_rly to mediate? hahaha good times.. good times… :)


    I missed it unfortunately. But good on you, I don't even know who that kid was, he just sat on IRC 24/7.
  19. If he does he's not the only one. Also Captain Motherfucking Paki, where's your brosephina I Hate Niggers, i miss her too. We need more bitches in space.
    "I Hate Niggers" was just MegaKush AKA Twin Gats, lol. She asked me how I managed to piss so many people off so well so I backseat-drove for her. She's doing... Something. I can't say.
  20. Hello, nice to meet you. I'm RisiR.


    Wassup, Darkie. Sorry for the stuff that was said way back. I know now that I was in the wrong.
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. ...
  5. 11120
  6. 11121
  7. 11122
  8. 11123
  9. 11124
  10. 11125
  11. ...
  12. 11466
  13. 11467
  14. 11468
  15. 11469
Jump to Top