wanna have attention
•
4 Jan 2008, 22:11
•
Journals
(20:24:27) (+[o]nuNca) recruiting 2 dickheads #team.[o] go go
*@$|Nickj*
.,.
<[o]> UtOPIE
YeE
*@$|Sup3r*
<[o]> SMOkIE
*@$|iNsAne*
astard
<[o]> NUNkAA
*@$|Sparco*
miAMi
<[o]> SkAZIE
real channel: #<[o]>
*@$|Nickj*
.,.
<[o]> UtOPIE
YeE
*@$|Sup3r*
<[o]> SMOkIE
*@$|iNsAne*
astard
<[o]> NUNkAA
*@$|Sparco*
miAMi
<[o]> SkAZIE
real channel: #<[o]>
smart clantags for smartpeople
In western philosophy, reason has had a twofold history. On the one hand, it has been taken to be objective and so to be fixed and discoverable by dialectic, analysis or study. Such objectivity is the case in the thinking of Plato, Aristotle, Alfarabi, Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides, Aquinas and Hegel. In the vision of these thinkers, reason is divine or at least has divine attributes. Such an approach compelled religious philosophers--Aquinas, for example, Gilson more recently--to square reason with revelation, no easy task.
On the other hand, since the seventeenth century rationalists, reason has been taken to be a subjective faculty, or rather the unaided ability (eg., pure reason) to form concepts. For Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, the effort resulted in significant developments in mathematics. For Kant, in contrast, pure reason was shown to have the ability to form concepts (time and space) that are the conditions of experience. Kant made his argument in opposition to Hume, who denied that reason had any role to play in experience.
in this we need to find our logic
:>>