Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

noahfor · 02-22-2006, 07:33 PM

I have been trying to get over the problem for some time. It's like I have no intuitive sense of what to do socially, so when I'm a social situation I'm very akward and robotic, which makes me not want to be in social situations even more, so every time I'm in one it strengthens my desire to avoid them. I have even worse problems though, and I am getting help for them, though nothing seems to help.

Another thing is this: The professor is always making it seem that the failure of the michelson-morely experiment to prove the existence of the ether is the foundation for relativity theory.

Am I incorrect in thinking that if the speed of light was constant for all observers, even if the ether was proven to exist, that relativity theory would still hold.

Also, how do the calssical empiricists account for logical or mathmatical knowledge? Is it by combination of sense data? For instance I have certain sense data that I call two, combine it with other sense data I call two, and call the new thing four. Then, how do they account for the notion of combination. What is sense data for combination?

Also, what is reason. Every time it is used I just get some vague idea, thinking math logic, just some vague vibe. I need a well structured, rich, clear conception of reason to really understand this stuff.

And, why are the apriori intuitions of time and space neccessary preconditions for experience. I can understand how visual experience implies some spacial "understanding," but what about sound? Do I need to "know where" in order to hear?

Are space and time apriori knowledge, or is knowledge a more strict concept. Does knowledge have to take the form of predication?

Is 1+1 = 2 an anlaytic judgement because the concept of two contains the relation to the concpet of one?

If only one question is answered, let it be this one: How does Kant come to the conclusion that sythetic aprior judgements are possible? He's not just saying that we can make them, but that we can KNOW them, right? His example is "every happening has a cause". How does he conclude that we know that?

02-22-2006, 07:33 PM	#15 (permalink)
noahfor Addict	I have been trying to get over the problem for some time. It's like I have no intuitive sense of what to do socially, so when I'm a social situation I'm very akward and robotic, which makes me not want to be in social situations even more, so every time I'm in one it strengthens my desire to avoid them. I have even worse problems though, and I am getting help for them, though nothing seems to help. Another thing is this: The professor is always making it seem that the failure of the michelson-morely experiment to prove the existence of the ether is the foundation for relativity theory. Am I incorrect in thinking that if the speed of light was constant for all observers, even if the ether was proven to exist, that relativity theory would still hold. Also, how do the calssical empiricists account for logical or mathmatical knowledge? Is it by combination of sense data? For instance I have certain sense data that I call two, combine it with other sense data I call two, and call the new thing four. Then, how do they account for the notion of combination. What is sense data for combination? Also, what is reason. Every time it is used I just get some vague idea, thinking math logic, just some vague vibe. I need a well structured, rich, clear conception of reason to really understand this stuff. And, why are the apriori intuitions of time and space neccessary preconditions for experience. I can understand how visual experience implies some spacial "understanding," but what about sound? Do I need to "know where" in order to hear? Are space and time apriori knowledge, or is knowledge a more strict concept. Does knowledge have to take the form of predication? Is 1+1 = 2 an anlaytic judgement because the concept of two contains the relation to the concpet of one? If only one question is answered, let it be this one: How does Kant come to the conclusion that sythetic aprior judgements are possible? He's not just saying that we can make them, but that we can KNOW them, right? His example is "every happening has a cause". How does he conclude that we know that? Last edited by noahfor; 02-22-2006 at 10:59 PM..