Thomas G. Chance
Unconfirmed Theory
Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 37 |
quote: Originally posted by bunkum
Yet another who misuses Nietzsche...how cute!
I didn't realize I was dealing with a literary authority. By the way, opinions without substantiating facts are really tasteless, bunkum. Nonetheless, it appears I must explain myself; I am refering to beyond good and evil, part 1: on the prejudices of philosophers, passage 12.
Specifically I am thinking of Nietzsche's rebuttal of Kant's supposed discovery of man's 'a priori' judgement faculty. He linkes this belief in an intangible faculty that is not based upon sensory observation, to scientific and religious zealotism. He then makes a case for the importance of sensory experience in the observation and validation of human experience. This is a short passage that begins this arguement:
"If one is to pursue physiology with a good conscience one is compelled to insist that the organs of sense are not phenomena in the sense of idealist philosophy: for if they were they could not be causes! Sensualism therefore is at least a regulative hypothesis, certainly a hauristic principal. - What? and other even go so far as to say that the external world is the work of our organs? But then our body, as a piece of of this external world, would be the work of our organs! But then our organs themselves would be - the work of our organs! This, it seems to me, is a complete reductio ad absurdum, supposing that the concept causa sui is something althogether absurd."
I hope that in considering the argument I have put forward, you can see how this passage about the validity of sensory perception in validating our experience plays upon my mind. Provided that you read it in the first place, of course.
This is the last time I plan to respond to unsupported opinion.
e.g. - 'you don't know what you're talking about.'
__________________
And once again, we play this dangerous game.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|