Welcome to Yahoo Groups.

Flaviu, Let's knock off the ad hominems here. Kathy's post deals extensively with the questions being discussed in an intelligent fashion, posing cogent and legitimate critiques of a number of points. As such it is a genuine contribution to the discussion

Herman, I don't know about this: "Sometimes, the best therapy can be a good classical drama, or a well written play, a novel, a book of poetry, or even a symphony." In dialectical terms, the presence of the other person-- the analyst --is crucial to the

Arkadi, I get your argument now. No, I haven't come across an argument in Kant showing that manifolds must have this lack of form. In the First Critique he makes these sorts of unsupported assertions quite often. Rather than claiming that we *do not know

Arkadi, If I follow your argument correctly you seem to be asserting that because a group such as a university presupposes the prior identity of the individuals that compose that group Kant's thesis falls apart. I am not committed to Kant or attempting to

Arkadi, I took you to be asking about what warrants Kant to posit the existence of things-in-themselves. The "no unity without unification" thesis might be best responded to by asking yourself what leads us to count something as one. Obvious examples might

Kant's argument seems to be that something must affect the structure of cognition in order for it to function. Kant distinguishes between pure and material intuition. Pure intuition is such that it can be produced through our own thought (hence the

Herman, Kant's point about the thing-in-itself is far more simple and straightforward than the observations you make about the theory of relativity and Heisenberg (not that these are bad observations). For Kant we can never know the thing-in-itself because

Ralph, If you're interested in starting up an Adorno list, let me know. I'm not deeply familiar with Adorno's work, but his Lectures on Metaphysics, Negative Dialectics, and Aesthetic Theory have certainly piqued my interest. I also know a few top notch

Oliver, As Marx famously said to a French newspaper: "Je ne suis pas marxist!" Best, Levi --- In hegel@^$1, Oliver Scholz wrote: > > eupraxis@^$2.. writes: > > [...] > > Nevertheless, this very topic (Marx's contribution to the critique > > of ideology) is

Wil, I tend to be fairly invested in this particular topic. I practice as a Lacanian analyst, participate a good deal in various Lacanian organizations, and have done a lot of publishing on his work. I have also published a good deal on Deleuze's work (I