Quite.. but I would suggest a few fellow Blues might gain insights by engaging with Kant's 'Ontological Argument' (and indeed Hegel's later stance on these matters), especially with regard to the position taken by Kant on the 'Barm vs Muffin Argument' (I gather he was firmly a 'Muffin Man')
Thought it was a barm but it was a muffin...Aaah!
But can you have one without the other or are they one and the same.
I find these the existential, metaphysical, phenomenological, philosophical, supernatural, and transcendental questions thst need answering.
Frank Zappa said it best when he said;
"Some people... some people like cupcakes exclusively, while myself, I say
There is naught nor ought there be nothing so exalted on the face of god's grey
Earth as that prince of foods... the muffin!"
In theory we may have broken some “moral sporting” rules but practically they can’t prove it with hacked up emails. Fairness of the tribunal against (city) will come to a reasonable outcome in spite of certain traditional clubs.I'm no expert on Kant, but for what it's worth here are my thoughts on his failings...
I think Kant’s main mistake lies in the way he thinks about the relation between his theoretical and his practical philosophy. He thinks he can salvage the notion of freedom indispensable to his moral philosophy only by reintroducing as objects of faith the metaphysical truths he had denied as objects of knowledge, eg hacked emails. I think this is a confusing and unnecessary move, which sends him straight back into the pre-critical, metaphysical age he had wanted to break away from.
How did he ever find the time to record Play Away after deliberating all that stuff ???I'm no expert on Kant, but for what it's worth here are my thoughts on his failings...
I think Kant’s main mistake lies in the way he thinks about the relation between his theoretical and his practical philosophy. He thinks he can salvage the notion of freedom indispensable to his moral philosophy only by reintroducing as objects of faith the metaphysical truths he had denied as objects of knowledge, eg hacked emails. I think this is a confusing and unnecessary move, which sends him straight back into the pre-critical, metaphysical age he had wanted to break away from.
I'm no expert on Kant, but for what it's worth here are my thoughts on his failings...
I think Kant’s main mistake lies in the way he thinks about the relation between his theoretical and his practical philosophy. He thinks he can salvage the notion of freedom indispensable to his moral philosophy only by reintroducing as objects of faith the metaphysical truths he had denied as objects of knowledge, eg hacked emails. I think this is a confusing and unnecessary move, which sends him straight back into the pre-critical, metaphysical age he had wanted to break away from.
I'm no expert on Kant, but for what it's worth here are my thoughts on his failings...
I think Kant’s main mistake lies in the way he thinks about the relation between his theoretical and his practical philosophy. He thinks he can salvage the notion of freedom indispensable to his moral philosophy only by reintroducing as objects of faith the metaphysical truths he had denied as objects of knowledge, eg hacked emails. I think this is a confusing and unnecessary move, which sends him straight back into the pre-critical, metaphysical age he had wanted to break away from.
Or rsoles :)I’m fed up with of reading stuff from kants
ufos and aliens ?Told our disclosure stuff will fill a decent sized skip.
That should keep people busy.
I was born in Kent.So you are saying he is a Kant?
I kant take it anymore .I'm no expert on Kant, but for what it's worth here are my thoughts on his failings...
I think Kant’s main mistake lies in the way he thinks about the relation between his theoretical and his practical philosophy. He thinks he can salvage the notion of freedom indispensable to his moral philosophy only by reintroducing as objects of faith the metaphysical truths he had denied as objects of knowledge, eg hacked emails. I think this is a confusing and unnecessary move, which sends him straight back into the pre-critical, metaphysical age he had wanted to break away from.
Coincides with the dippers stong possibility of failing to Qualify for champions league next season they were shite but he needs to deflect the shit and it all OUR fault.compensation for the dipper readers of his rag.I see Miggles has released one of his greatest hits rehash of his work on our CAS hearing, explaining why it was all wrong and that we will get a ban when the PL are finished with us. So tedious. Not going to link to it but it’s in the independent…
Kant deny it.All very philosophical.
The absolute state of that piece. All the tropes (City picked the Panel, UEFA would have won if..., UEFA should have appealed). Its utter nonsense and UEFA's response at the end is a good summary why they wouldn't have won at appeal even if the Swiss Federal Tribunal had taken the case. Anyone that understands the legal process would know that appealing CAS's judgment was almost impossible. It is a desperate piece.I see Miggles has released one of his greatest hits rehash of his work on our CAS hearing, explaining why it was all wrong and that we will get a ban when the PL are finished with us. So tedious. Not going to link to it but it’s in the independent…
zappa :)Kant thought it was a barm, but it was a muffin.
He hung around, till you found,
That he didn't know nuthin'.
———————————
Klopp thought he had a plan
But they only was a-puffin'
No cries is heard in the night
As a result of their stuffin'.