I'm planning a big life change. This is serious.
I could and probably will be in a situation I've never been in before. I pray it works out well.
I will know more by FEB / MAR.
---
I'm a sick, sick man who find this sick sick photo, sickly hot.
------------->
I could and probably will be in a situation I've never been in before. I pray it works out well.
I will know more by FEB / MAR.
---
I'm a sick, sick man who find this sick sick photo, sickly hot.
------------->
SPOILERS! (Click to view)
The Antinomies abstract from all content of knowledge. The reader should be careful to observe that our ideas, in the study of our experience, are the mere results of the power of philosophy, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, as any dedicated reader can clearly see. As will easily be shown in the next section, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, for example, the Transcendental Deduction is by its very nature contradictory, but the paralogisms of practical reason prove the validity of the empirical objects in space and time. Our understanding, so regarded, abstracts from all content of a posteriori knowledge, by means of analytic unity. Yet can I entertain metaphysics in thought, or does it present itself to me? Our experience would thereby be made to
contradict the pure employment of the employment of our understanding, as is evident upon close examination.
Because of the relation between the Ideal and our faculties, Hume tells us that, for example, our experience has nothing to do with the things in themselves. Our judgements, in respect of the intelligible character, should only be used as a canon for the Ideal of human reason; for these reasons, natural reason may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradictions with time. Our understanding can not take account of the noumena. Therefore, let us suppose that the thing in itself (and I assert, with the sole exception of the transcendental unity of apperception, that this is true) may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradictions with philosophy. And can I entertain applied logic in thought, or does it present itself to me? By means of analysis, the Ideal of human reason can not take account of natural causes; on the other hand, time depends on, on the contrary, natural reason. To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, when thus treated as the objects in space and time, our understanding would be falsified, yet the paralogisms exclude the possibility of the transcendental unity of apperception.
Our understanding is the mere result of the power of time, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. It remains a mystery why human reason (and it remains a mystery why this is true) stands in need of practical reason. The paralogisms of practical reason have nothing to do with, in natural theology, the Categories; thus, the phenomena abstract from all content of a priori knowledge. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the Antinomies, however, can not take account of our sense perceptions. It must not be supposed that the objects in space and time, thus, would be falsified, since all of the noumena are disjunctive.
I assert that our understanding can thereby determine in its totality, on the other hand, space. Since all of the paralogisms are ampliative, the transcendental unity of apperception proves the validity of natural reason; in the case of our experience, practical reason exists in the employment of the things in themselves. Natural causes are the clue to the discovery of philosophy. The reader should be careful to observe that the architectonic of practical reason stands in need of the Ideal. As I have elsewhere shown, what we have alone been able to show is that our knowledge constitutes the whole content for our a posteriori knowledge. The question of this matter's relation to objects is not in any way under discussion.
Our concepts would thereby be made to contradict metaphysics, yet our ideas constitute the whole content of, in particular, the Antinomies. Natural causes abstract from all content of knowledge, because of the relation between the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions and the phenomena. In all theoretical sciences, it is not at all certain that the Transcendental Deduction is the key to understanding the pure employment of the Transcendental Deduction, by means of analytic unity. (In the case of necessity, our concepts (and it is not at all certain that this is the case) are just as necessary as time, by virtue of practical reason.) We can deduce that the paralogisms have lying before them, so far as I know, the Ideal. We can deduce that, on the contrary, the phenomena are the clue to the discovery of, insomuch as the manifold relies on the empirical objects in space and time, the noumena, yet the transcendental unity of apperception stands in need of the employment of our knowledge.
Since all of our faculties are problematic, it is obvious that, for example, the manifold is a representation of, that is to say, our sense perceptions, but the objects in space and time, in particular, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must be known a priori. As we have already seen, the phenomena stand in need to the manifold. As we have already seen, the Transcendental Deduction stands in need of the paralogisms. Our synthetic judgements stand in need to metaphysics, as will easily be shown in the next section. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the transcendental objects in space and time can not take account of natural causes; in view of these considerations, the discipline of pure reason has lying before it our faculties.
By means of analysis, the objects in space and time have lying before them, in the case of general logic, philosophy, yet the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions has lying before it, consequently, the transcendental unity of apperception. Since some of the Antinomies are problematic, our ideas are by their very nature contradictory. Space, even as this relates to the Ideal of pure reason, is a body of demonstrated science, and all of it must be known a posteriori. Because of the relation between transcendental logic and the things in themselves, the transcendental unity of apperception, in all theoretical sciences, is by its very nature contradictory, yet the phenomena are what first give rise to the manifold. For these reasons, what we have alone been able to show is that the employment of necessity teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of our faculties, by means of analytic unity. Our a priori knowledge abstracts from all content of knowledge. As we have already seen, we can deduce that necessity would thereby be made to contradict the objects in space and time; in the case of the Ideal, our knowledge, insomuch as the Transcendental Deduction relies on the noumena, is the mere result of the power of the Transcendental Deduction, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. But at present we shall turn our attention to the employment of the paralogisms.
The discipline of pure reason is just as necessary as, therefore, natural reason, but the Categories are the clue to the discovery of, so far as I know, our ideas. Metaphysics exists in our ampliative judgements; still, the Ideal, indeed, would thereby be made to contradict the phenomena. Space would be falsified, as is evident upon close examination. The employment of the manifold can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like philosophy, it is just as necessary as problematic principles, and the architectonic of human reason is the mere result of the power of the discipline of human reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. There can be no doubt that the phenomena exist in our concepts, as is proven in the ontological manuals. As is evident upon close examination, I assert, in the study of the thing in itself, that the paralogisms of practical reason, in the full sense of these terms, exist in the Antinomies; in view of these considerations, the objects in space and time, consequently, are a representation of philosophy. This is not something we are in a position to establish.
The Antinomies abstract from all content of knowledge. The reader should be careful to observe that our ideas, in the study of our experience, are the mere results of the power of philosophy, a blind but indispensable function of the soul, as any dedicated reader can clearly see. As will easily be shown in the next section, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, for example, the Transcendental Deduction is by its very nature contradictory, but the paralogisms of practical reason prove the validity of the empirical objects in space and time. Our understanding, so regarded, abstracts from all content of a posteriori knowledge, by means of analytic unity. Yet can I entertain metaphysics in thought, or does it present itself to me? Our experience would thereby be made to
contradict the pure employment of the employment of our understanding, as is evident upon close examination.
Because of the relation between the Ideal and our faculties, Hume tells us that, for example, our experience has nothing to do with the things in themselves. Our judgements, in respect of the intelligible character, should only be used as a canon for the Ideal of human reason; for these reasons, natural reason may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradictions with time. Our understanding can not take account of the noumena. Therefore, let us suppose that the thing in itself (and I assert, with the sole exception of the transcendental unity of apperception, that this is true) may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradictions with philosophy. And can I entertain applied logic in thought, or does it present itself to me? By means of analysis, the Ideal of human reason can not take account of natural causes; on the other hand, time depends on, on the contrary, natural reason. To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, when thus treated as the objects in space and time, our understanding would be falsified, yet the paralogisms exclude the possibility of the transcendental unity of apperception.
Our understanding is the mere result of the power of time, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. It remains a mystery why human reason (and it remains a mystery why this is true) stands in need of practical reason. The paralogisms of practical reason have nothing to do with, in natural theology, the Categories; thus, the phenomena abstract from all content of a priori knowledge. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the Antinomies, however, can not take account of our sense perceptions. It must not be supposed that the objects in space and time, thus, would be falsified, since all of the noumena are disjunctive.
I assert that our understanding can thereby determine in its totality, on the other hand, space. Since all of the paralogisms are ampliative, the transcendental unity of apperception proves the validity of natural reason; in the case of our experience, practical reason exists in the employment of the things in themselves. Natural causes are the clue to the discovery of philosophy. The reader should be careful to observe that the architectonic of practical reason stands in need of the Ideal. As I have elsewhere shown, what we have alone been able to show is that our knowledge constitutes the whole content for our a posteriori knowledge. The question of this matter's relation to objects is not in any way under discussion.
Our concepts would thereby be made to contradict metaphysics, yet our ideas constitute the whole content of, in particular, the Antinomies. Natural causes abstract from all content of knowledge, because of the relation between the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions and the phenomena. In all theoretical sciences, it is not at all certain that the Transcendental Deduction is the key to understanding the pure employment of the Transcendental Deduction, by means of analytic unity. (In the case of necessity, our concepts (and it is not at all certain that this is the case) are just as necessary as time, by virtue of practical reason.) We can deduce that the paralogisms have lying before them, so far as I know, the Ideal. We can deduce that, on the contrary, the phenomena are the clue to the discovery of, insomuch as the manifold relies on the empirical objects in space and time, the noumena, yet the transcendental unity of apperception stands in need of the employment of our knowledge.
Since all of our faculties are problematic, it is obvious that, for example, the manifold is a representation of, that is to say, our sense perceptions, but the objects in space and time, in particular, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must be known a priori. As we have already seen, the phenomena stand in need to the manifold. As we have already seen, the Transcendental Deduction stands in need of the paralogisms. Our synthetic judgements stand in need to metaphysics, as will easily be shown in the next section. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, the transcendental objects in space and time can not take account of natural causes; in view of these considerations, the discipline of pure reason has lying before it our faculties.
By means of analysis, the objects in space and time have lying before them, in the case of general logic, philosophy, yet the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions has lying before it, consequently, the transcendental unity of apperception. Since some of the Antinomies are problematic, our ideas are by their very nature contradictory. Space, even as this relates to the Ideal of pure reason, is a body of demonstrated science, and all of it must be known a posteriori. Because of the relation between transcendental logic and the things in themselves, the transcendental unity of apperception, in all theoretical sciences, is by its very nature contradictory, yet the phenomena are what first give rise to the manifold. For these reasons, what we have alone been able to show is that the employment of necessity teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of our faculties, by means of analytic unity. Our a priori knowledge abstracts from all content of knowledge. As we have already seen, we can deduce that necessity would thereby be made to contradict the objects in space and time; in the case of the Ideal, our knowledge, insomuch as the Transcendental Deduction relies on the noumena, is the mere result of the power of the Transcendental Deduction, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. But at present we shall turn our attention to the employment of the paralogisms.
The discipline of pure reason is just as necessary as, therefore, natural reason, but the Categories are the clue to the discovery of, so far as I know, our ideas. Metaphysics exists in our ampliative judgements; still, the Ideal, indeed, would thereby be made to contradict the phenomena. Space would be falsified, as is evident upon close examination. The employment of the manifold can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like philosophy, it is just as necessary as problematic principles, and the architectonic of human reason is the mere result of the power of the discipline of human reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. There can be no doubt that the phenomena exist in our concepts, as is proven in the ontological manuals. As is evident upon close examination, I assert, in the study of the thing in itself, that the paralogisms of practical reason, in the full sense of these terms, exist in the Antinomies; in view of these considerations, the objects in space and time, consequently, are a representation of philosophy. This is not something we are in a position to establish.
---
Don't you feel cheated?
I know I do.
SPOILERS! (Click to view)
Generated by Kant Generator Pro (kgp.py), written by Mark Pilgrim <f8dy@diveintopython.org>. Online version by Bert de Bruijn <bert@debruijn.be>.
Generated by Kant Generator Pro (kgp.py), written by Mark Pilgrim <f8dy@diveintopython.org>. Online version by Bert de Bruijn <bert@debruijn.be>.
is it a sex change?
whatever it is, i support ya, jeebus.
hmm i wouldnt want to piss that chick off!!
::shits on down on stage, legs dangling over:: *ever get the feeling you've been cheated?* (yes a very cliche quote being that this is SG and johnny rotten said that)