jnana Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 Magister colin leslie dean proves Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish As stated https://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/papers/kant2.htm “The Critique of Pure Reason is unified by a single line of argument involving just two or three central ideas, which, in spite of a certain complexity and obscurity in its development, can be fairly summed up as follows: Kant poses the question, "How is synthetic, a priori knowledge possible?"” a priori knowledge is https://www.britannica.com/topic/a-priori-knowledge a priori judgments are “Latent in the distinction between the a priori and the a posteriori for Kant is the antithesis between necessary truth and contingent truth (a truth is necessary if it cannot be denied without contradiction) The former applies to a priori judgments, which are arrived at independently of experience and hold universally).” kants notion that mathematics and euclidean geometry is a priori is shown to be rubbish thus his claim that mathematics and euclidean geometry is synthetic a priori is rubbish thus Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/Kant.pdf or www.scribd.com/document/690781235/Commentary-Kants-Critique-of-Pure-Reason-is-shown-to-be-a-failure-and-complete-rubbish-criticisms-epsitemology-ontology-metaphysics-synthetic-a examples 1)from number theory 2) from geometry example 1) from number theory from mathematics let x=0.999...(the 9s dont stop thus is an infinite decimal thus non-integer) 10x =9.999... 10x-x =9.999…- 0.999… 9x=9 x= 1(an integer) maths prove an interger=/is a non-integer maths ends in contradiction-thus mathematics cant be a priori with mathematics ending in contradiction you can prove anything in mathematics ie you can prove Fermat's last theorem and you can disprove Fermat's last theorem you only need to find 1 contradiction in a system ie mathematics to show that for the whole system you can prove anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus (falsely attributed to Duns Scotus), is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion thus thus mathematics cant be a priori thus Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish 2) from geometry A 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle cannot be constructed-mathematics ends in contradiction proof mathematicians will tell you √2 does not terminate yet in the same breath tell you A 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle can be constructed even though they admit √2 does not terminate thus you cant construct a √2 hypotenuse thus you cannot construct 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle thus geometry ends in contradiction-thus geometry cant be a priori thus Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish you only need to find 1 contradiction in a system ie mathematics to show that for the whole system you can prove anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus (falsely attributed to Duns Scotus), is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion thus Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 ! Moderator Note Opening new threads without responding to replies in your old threads makes it look like you have an agenda that isn't discussion based. Don't do this again, and please stop pushing the drivel of this author. It's not science, it's not philosophy. It's nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts