On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:58:49 +0900, B Robson <Xb-robsonX@gol.com>
wrote:

(I decided to change the subject line since we have diverted from the
original subject and I consider term _jap_ disparaging remark)

>C.Brady wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:53:05 +0900, Brett Robson
>> <deep_m_m@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>
>>>Brett Robson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>C.Brady wrote:

>>>>>Immanuel Kant in  seinem Aufsatz "$(D??(Bber Schw$(D??(Brmerei und die Mittel
>>>>>dagegen" schreibt  durchaus nachvollziehbar: "Gegen redselige
>>>>>Unwissenheit hilft kein weitl$(D??(Bufiges Widerlegen, sondern nur
>>>>>verachtendes Schweigen." Aber: Wer das beherzigt, der $(D??(Bberl$(D??(Bsst der
>>>>>Dummheit das Feld. Er sollte sich auch nicht an den Rat halten, der da
>>>>>hei$(D??(Bt: "Der Kl$(D??(Bgere gibt nach!" Nein! Wenn alle Klugen nur noch
>>>>>nachg$(D??(Bben, dann h$(D??(Btten wir bald die totale Weltherrschaft der
>>>>>Dummheit.
>>>>>
>>>>>- C.B.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>Apparently Kant was a real pissant.
>> 
>> 
>> Perhaps you're rejecting Immanuel Kant's contributions to metaphysics,
>
>mmanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable,
>Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table,
>David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel,
>And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
>There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the turning of the wrist,
>Socrates himself was permanently pissed...
>John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, with half a pint of shandy was
>particularly ill,
>Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day,
>Aristotle, Aristotle was a beggar for the bottle,
>Hobbes was fond of his dram,
>And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart, "I drink therefore I am."
>Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
>A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.

I fail to see how your witty comment (Style over Substance),
gratuitously supplemented with argumentum ad hominem, provide a
reasoned argument in support of your contention that Kant is a _real
pissant_.
Alas, one may therefore conclude, that in all likelihood you were a)
unable to understand Kant's position, b) understand the philosophical
background to which Kant was reacting. 
In short, if you are rejecting Kant's theory, you must say so and 
justify your viewpoint based on scholarly consensus.

>
>
> >>>That's really interesting. Yesterday I had a sandwich with the slogan
> >>>"Ein meister der sandwich" written on the outside.
> >
> >
> > I don't understand. Do you frequently suffer from bouts of
> > apparitions?
>
>The wrapper has "Ein meister der sandwich" written on it. It's not like 
>it's the Virgin Mary.

Thanks for clearing this up. I have no reason to question your
particular taste in sandwiches, but how is this relevant to your
critical analysis of Kant's theories?
>
>
>> Not sure, but your Babel fish translation may leave the issues
>> unresolved....  
>
>Well German is not one of the 3 languages I speak.

I appreciate your frustration with Babel fish…

(Please post follow-up to relevant newsgroups to eliminate irrelevant
cross-posting)

- C.B. 
>
>
>
>