[FairfieldLife] Re: Name that Philosopher!

2007-12-10 Thread cardemaister
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 How we intuit objects. What's relevant here is that space and time,
 rather than being real things-in-themselves or empirically mediated
 appearances  are the very forms of intuition  by which we must
 perceive objects. They are hence neither to be considered properties
 that we may attribute to objects in perceiving them, nor substantial
 entities of themselves. They are in that sense subjective, yet
 necessary preconditions of any given object so insofar as this object
 is an appearance and not a thing-in-itself. Humans necessarily
 perceive objects spatially and temporally. This is part of what it
 means for a human to cognize an object, to perceive it as something
 both spatial and temporal.


A wild guess: Kant?



[FairfieldLife] Re: Name that Philosopher!

2007-12-10 Thread new . morning
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
 
  How we intuit objects. What's relevant here is that space and time,
  rather than being real things-in-themselves or empirically mediated
  appearances  are the very forms of intuition  by which we must
  perceive objects. They are hence neither to be considered properties
  that we may attribute to objects in perceiving them, nor substantial
  entities of themselves. They are in that sense subjective, yet
  necessary preconditions of any given object so insofar as this object
  is an appearance and not a thing-in-itself. Humans necessarily
  perceive objects spatially and temporally. This is part of what it
  means for a human to cognize an object, to perceive it as something
  both spatial and temporal.
 
 
 A wild guess: Kant?

You win an autographed copy of Critique of Pure Reason. And kudos for
beating all of these MIU philosophy majors to the punch.




[FairfieldLife] Re: Name that Philosopher!

2007-12-10 Thread curtisdeltablues
 You win an autographed copy of Critique of Pure Reason. And kudos for
 beating all of these MIU philosophy majors to the punch.


Although my philosophy degree may not have given me the ability to
tell on transcendental idealist from another, it has come in mighty
handy in handling certain practical philosophical arguments: 

I really can't stay - Baby it's cold outside
I've got to go away - Baby it's cold outside
This evening has been - Been hoping that you'd drop in
So very nice - I'll hold your hands, they're just like ice
My mother will start to worry - Beautiful, what's your hurry
My father will be pacing the floor - Listen to the fireplace roar
So really I'd better scurry - Beautiful, please don't hurry
well Maybe just a half a drink more - Put some music on while I pour

The neighbors might think - Baby, it's bad out there
Say, what's in this drink - No cabs to be had out there
I wish I knew how - Your eyes are like starlight now
To break this spell - I'll take your hat, your hair looks swell
I ought to say no, no, no, sir - Mind if I move a little closer
At least I'm gonna say that I tried - What's the sense in hurting my pride
I really can't stay - Baby don't hold out
Ahh, but it's cold outside

C'mon baby

I simply must go - Baby, it's cold outside
The answer is no - Ooh baby, it's cold outside
This welcome has been - I'm lucky that you dropped in
So nice and warm -- Look out the window at that storm
My sister will be suspicious - Man, your lips look so delicious
My brother will be there at the door - Waves upon a tropical shore
My maiden aunt's mind is vicious - Gosh your lips look delicious
Well maybe just a half a drink more - Never such a blizzard before

I've got to go home - Oh, baby, you'll freeze out there
Say, lend me your comb - It's up to your knees out there
You've really been grand - Your eyes are like starlight now
But don't you see - How can you do this thing to me
There's bound to be talk tomorrow - Making my life long sorrow
At least there will be plenty implied - If you caught pneumonia and died
I really can't stay - Get over that old out
Ahh, but it's cold outside

Baby it's cold outside

Brr its cold….
It's cold out there
Cant you stay awhile longer baby
Well…..I really shouldn't...alright

Make it worth your while baby
Ahh, do that again….

(sung together) Baby its cold outsid!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
  
   How we intuit objects. What's relevant here is that space and time,
   rather than being real things-in-themselves or empirically mediated
   appearances  are the very forms of intuition  by which we must
   perceive objects. They are hence neither to be considered properties
   that we may attribute to objects in perceiving them, nor substantial
   entities of themselves. They are in that sense subjective, yet
   necessary preconditions of any given object so insofar as this
object
   is an appearance and not a thing-in-itself. Humans necessarily
   perceive objects spatially and temporally. This is part of what it
   means for a human to cognize an object, to perceive it as something
   both spatial and temporal.
  
  
  A wild guess: Kant?
 
 You win an autographed copy of Critique of Pure Reason. And kudos for
 beating all of these MIU philosophy majors to the punch.





[FairfieldLife] Re: Name that Philosopher!

2007-12-10 Thread cardemaister
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ 
wrote:
  
   How we intuit objects. What's relevant here is that space and 
time,
   rather than being real things-in-themselves or empirically 
mediated
   appearances  are the very forms of intuition  by which we must
   perceive objects. They are hence neither to be considered 
properties
   that we may attribute to objects in perceiving them, nor 
substantial
   entities of themselves. They are in that sense subjective, yet
   necessary preconditions of any given object so insofar as this 
object
   is an appearance and not a thing-in-itself. Humans necessarily
   perceive objects spatially and temporally. This is part of 
what it
   means for a human to cognize an object, to perceive it as 
something
   both spatial and temporal.
  
  
  A wild guess: Kant?
 
 You win an autographed copy of Critique of Pure Reason. And kudos 
for
 beating all of these MIU philosophy majors to the punch.


Kudos to Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

And being some 7 hours ahead in time, so to speak...