[MD] Food for Thought

[david buchanan]

Laird said to dmb:
>I might be mis-corrolating Kant's TITs and their positioning in his
>philosophy, but without his TITs, his philosophy has no experience at
>all. For lack of a better term, TITs are the 'subject', the source, of
>his experience. Maybe it's more like ripping DQ out of the MoQ. Surely
>without any source of experience Kant would get a big fat F on a radical
>empiricism (or any empiricism) scale? Seems kind of unfair to remove his
>access to experience and then try to judge him in terms of experience.

dmb says:
I'm not trying to do anything to Kant's philosophy. I'm just saying the MOQ 
differs from Kant insofar as it has no TITs. I'm just saying that Kantians 
have a different picture of reality.

_________________________________________________________________
The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here.  Get all the scoop. 
http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/