Kant Space/Cognition

[Anonymous No.11848833]

>Space is created by the cognitive process

Lel, who is this pleb?

[Anonymous No.11848850]

OH FUCK I JUST GOT IT

[Anonymous No.11848854]

>>11848850
omedetou, brainlet-kun

[Anonymous No.11848859]

>>11848850
Care to explain to the class?

[Anonymous No.11848861]

>>11848850
HOLY SHIT IT JUST CLICKED HERE TOO

[Anonymous No.11848862]

>>11848833
>Space is created by the cognitive process
so space is a conscious concept not a manifestation of logos?

[Anonymous No.11848864]

>>11848850
dear fucking god I too see it. holy FUCK

[Anonymous No.11848866]

>>11848859
so it turns out the cognitive process creates what we call "space"
kinda requires you to realize it's literally all in your head tho

[Anonymous No.11848873]

>>11848833
>>11848866

>if we remove our own subject or even only the subjective constitution of the senses in general, then all constitution, all relations of objects in space and time, indeed space and time themselves would disappear, and as appearances they cannot exist in themselves, but only in us.

He cant be serious with this one, right?
Like Kant isnt saying it's all in our head right?
Like one of the greatest minds of the western world is saying these walls aren't here if I'm not right?

>If a tree falls in a forest tier

[Anonymous No.11848891]

>>11848873
perhaps linguistic discourse is not the most appropriate means to achieve the Kantian Revolution
try this:
\\\
https://youtu.be/bAgmGZ9iQ2Y?t=330
\\\

[Anonymous No.11848893]

>... if I remove the thinking subject, the whole material world must at once vanish because it is nothing but a phenomenal appearance in the sensibility of ourselves as a subject, and a manner or species of representation. — Critique of Pure Reason

So if I kill everyone, the rocks dissapear?
What?!

[Anonymous No.11848895]

>>11848893
How is this different from Berkleyan idealism?

[Anonymous No.11848909]

>>11848833
Capital is sentient and teleoplexic, it's happening all at once

[Anonymous No.11848931]

>>11848893
there were never "rocks" to begin with anon, just impressions of rocks created from reflected photons impacting your rods and cones and being translated into an impression in your brain - all you've ever had access to is the impression, and it is cognition, thinking, coupled with sensation that will influence the way your brain processes that information (where it is, what "that color" is, if it's moving or not, how the impressions are changing, etc).
>So if I kill everyone, the rocks dissapear?
If all ways of representing something are destroyed, then there is no sense in which the rocks "exist"; existence necessitates a subject to exist for, something to contrast and to bring it to light.
>>11848895
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/supplement1.html

[Anonymous No.11848933]

>>11848895
Berkeley's world is sustained by God's mind so functionally it wasn't all that different from materialism.

[Anonymous No.11848934]

Kant literally says space isn’t cognitive. He says it’s a pure intuition. It’s a form of the sensibility which is prior to and necessary for all experience. He isn’t saying “it’s all in your head.” He saying synthetic apriori judments such as 7+5=12 only make sense when we have a pure form of the sensibility (space and time) and a pure form of the understanding (the categories). This means space and time cannot be part of the universe as such, but rather the forms that make experience possible.

[Anonymous No.11848936]

In addition Berkley claimed everything is ideal since we experience ideas and like only begets like. Kant makes no such claim.

[Anonymous No.11848973]

>>11848873
>walls is space

Space is a relation among things and not the things themselves

[Anonymous No.11848990]

>>11848934
>if we remove our own subject or even only the subjective constitution of the senses in general, then all constitution, all relations of objects in space and time, indeed space and time themselves would disappear, and as appearances they cannot exist in themselves, but only in us.

The above states space and time disappear without the subject.

>>11848931
Okay, but those electrons are there even if I don't perceive them, right? How can there be a noumena (thing in itself) if it wouldn't exist without my perception?

[Anonymous No.11848999]

>>11848893
He's not saying the world in itself will disappear, but that the phenomenal appearance will (things as they appear to us). It's obvious, if there's no us then there's no things as they appear to us...

[Anonymous No.11849002]

>t. en poopled interstisic tetravalent intersparks torque 23x10^-1002 anglespheres
1033

[Anonymous No.11849007]

You can ignore Kant and just about any philosopher that wasn't alive in the past 50 years.

Science has completely btfo'd them and their underlying ideas about world and most of the concepts.

[Anonymous No.11849016]

>>11848999
Is that really all it amounts to. Perception disappears when I dont percieve it? That's it?

When he says time and space disappears does, they are the world in itself right. Time would move forward and things would still be the same distance apart without perception right?

>>11848973
But if I disappear, the walls are still 15ft apart whether I'm there to percieve it or not, right?

[Anonymous No.11849018]

>>11849007
pls tell me this is bait

[Anonymous No.11849020]

>>11849007
Even the post modernists are pretty dissapointing.

Do you recommend Richard Rorty and his postmodern pragmatism?

[Anonymous No.11849026]

>>11849018
> DUDE LET ME GASLIGHT MYSELF INTO TO LEVEL OF INTELLECTUALS 1000 YEARS AGO THIS IS BIG BRAIN THINKING LMAO

Retard. Simple modern day science journal flies far above the intellectual tinkering of Kant. Dude was wrong about biology as proven by based Darwin.

>>11849020
>pomo
throw it in the trash, they get confused about the fact that philosophers were antiscientific retards and claim dindunuffin and cannoknoffin at same time

[Anonymous No.11849030]

>>11849007
based science

[Anonymous No.11849034]

>>11849016
Space and time are not properties of things out there, we impose space and time on the world, they come from us. Do you understand his argumentation for why this is the case?

[Anonymous No.11849037]

>>11848866
Space creates your cognitive process though, but who am I to argue with idiots who take their science from 17th Century philosophers.

Based and redpilled.

[Anonymous No.11849040]

>>11849034
>Space [...] are not properties of things out there
yeah great take a fucking high school physics class fucking retard

[Anonymous No.11849048]

>>11848990
Yes, if synthetic judgments apriori are possible, then space and time disappear without a subject according to Kant. This still doesn’t mean “it’s all in your head.” It mean that space and time are the preconditions of encountering anything at all in experience. This also means that, that which you experience is a representation of External noumena acting on the sensibility, represented in space and time.

[Anonymous No.11849049]

>>11849040
Shocker. STEMtard can't even write a coherent sentence

[Anonymous No.11849053]

>>11849049
Shocker, drooling retard talks about modern day science from the same position of knowledge as 17th Century person, lmao, get fucked retard.

Why don't you breath some asbestos while you are at it fucking idiot, they didn't think it was bad back in the day

[Anonymous No.11849054]

>>11849034
Not really, I'm still confused.

We measure space and time in human terms.

If I destroyed every mind. Planets would still orbit the sun through time, and would be the same distances they've always been?

[Anonymous No.11849063]

>>11849054
Yes they would. Don't fall for the gaslight attempts by humanities failures.

[Anonymous No.11849071]

>>11849054
Space and time does not exist apart from human experience according to Kant. The reason he thinks this it that he believes synthetic apriori judgments (arithmetic and geometry) are possible. If these are possible, there must some universal form of sensation (space and time). These cannot be actually existent in the world as such because then they would not be a priori but a posterior.

[Anonymous No.11849078]

>>11849054
The processes beyond experience which give rise to the phenomenon of satellites circling the sun would presumably continue. But, space an time, as they appear in experience, would not exist.

[Anonymous No.11849079]

>>11848990
>those electrons are there even if I don't perceive them, right
Is there a way of knowing this? Human experience is not reliable if we can't have objective knowledge. Would the sky still be blue? What is blueness? If an alien race saw skies the way we see red, how would that affect their mythology? If the universe has a design, temporality must also have a design. How can I act or think in way outside those parameters? If I bang my head against the desk, is it reasonable to suppose with uncertainty that that action can cause a dimension to collapse if in a higher dimension where infinite combinations of material laws exist and infinite timelines happen simultaneously and can be treated as single points in higher dimensions, infinitely ad absurdum, what can't be said to be the case with certainty as a result? A three dimensional existence can be treated as a single point in a higher dimension theoretically, how the fuck are we supposed to represent a god if we can't imagine 6 dimensions?

[Anonymous No.11849081]

>>11849078
>space an time, as they appear in experience, would not exist.
durr
< if you wipeout humons then humons wouldn't experience space time
wow fucking genius damn

[Anonymous No.11849084]

>>11849081
Is there a point here beyond affirmation?

[Anonymous No.11849086]

>>11849071
I kind of get this, but can you break it down for me if you have time.

Synthetic apriori is knowledge before sense perception? Cognitive function imposed on reality? Maybe, can you elucidate this?

What does this gain? Is it still respected as a legitimate view?

[Anonymous No.11849089]

>>11849081
Perhaps it needs rephrasing, “without subjects, who have as forms of their sensibility space and time, space and time do not exist

[Anonymous No.11849090]

>>11849054
Everything you have ever known was conditioned by our cognitive apparatus, including the astronomy references you made. When you ask how the world would be if we kill every human you're trying to talk about things in themselves, and according to Kant we can't do that

[Anonymous No.11849091]

>>11849071
>Space and time does not exist apart from human experience according to Kant
And Kant is wrong, as proven by Darwin's little known genius theory of evolution and natural selection.

[Anonymous No.11849094]

>>11849079
We might question how we experience space and time, same as how my experience of blueness may differ.

If I don't percieve a rock rolling down the hill several yards away, it is still rolling.

I'm having trouble grasping this synthetic a priori deal and what it gains

[Anonymous No.11849100]

>>11849091
>popsci kid is retarded
Every time

[Anonymous No.11849106]

>>11849090
>according to Kant we can't do that

So, where do we go from there. What do we gain with this synthetic a priori knowledge. Is it just to inoly metaphysics exists so he can believe in god?

[Anonymous No.11849108]

>Einstein literally says that his physics research has confirmed Kant's theories about spacetime
>Nearly 100 years later, idiots on /lit/ are still disputing Kant's theories about spacetime
wtf

[Anonymous No.11849113]

>>11849100
Space/time do exist outside of human existence and experience because that resupposes frontal lobe and vertebral cortex among many other things, which didn't spring out from nothing but first they abiogenesis through chemistry and afterwards billions of years of evolution/selection (and we certainly can't argue that first single cell organisms apply for human experience, the only way to save Kant)

It's so easy, why do you make it so hard?

[Anonymous No.11849115]

>>11849108
>Einstein literally says that his physics research has confirmed Kant's theories about spacetime
"under specific conditions".
Einstein left a lot of escape hatches for himself
Like Darwin, Einstein was also wrong about his theory.
And they have both developed

here is the main quote
> “...the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
> for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

Now shut the fuck up retarded 17th century scientist

[Anonymous No.11849127]

>>11849113
Well for you to understand it presupposes neocortical mass you do not possess, so I'm not sure why you're lashing out, it is what it is in nature's lottery.

[Anonymous No.11849135]

>>11849086
A priori means universally and necessarily true.
Synthetic means the predicate is not contained within the subject. For example, “the car is red” is synthetic because non-red cars are possible. There is nothing in the concept car which indicates red.

Now, Kant claims geometry and arithmetic are synthetic apriori. That is, they are universally true and not merely tautology. He gives the example that 5+7=12, but 12 does not exist in the idea of 5 or 7.

For these to be a priori, they must be possible before experience. But, also they must combine information from the sensibility (the ability to sense) and understanding (the ability to form concepts. But these contributions must also be apriori.

So if geometry and arithmetic are universally true, there must be something in the sensibility that is universally true for all experience, which correlates to geometry and arithmetic. These he claims are space and time respectively. He gives great reasons for this in the first critique.

We gain from this a fundamental universally true science of mathematics. Also, we get to denounce traditional metaphysics as the non-sense it is.

[Anonymous No.11849138]

>>11849127
because the entire time Kant performs the action of arguing presupposes 5bn. years of evolution which requires equal amount of time and space existing outside of human experience.

it's so dum

[Anonymous No.11849142]

THE ARGUMENT IS "SIMPLE"

If space and time are properties of things out there and not something we bring to the table, then we derive our concepts of space and time from sensible experience.

The problem is that for one to even have a sensible experience space and time must already be in place, since it is impossible that your five senses experience something without space and time.

So it cannot be the case that we derive space and time from sensible experience, because space and time are necessary conditions for you to even have a sensible experience. They must precede any experience you may have...

[Anonymous No.11849144]

>>11849091
Darwin does not contradict Kant. Why would you think that? Senses evolved via natural selection . So what? Kant can still claim space and time are forms of the sensibility.

[Anonymous No.11849146]

>>11849144
>Kant can still claim space and time are forms of the sensibility
Already giving up ground, thanks.

[Anonymous No.11849153]

>>11849146
What ground was given?

[Anonymous No.11849159]

>>11849135
So is this guy >>11849142 agreeing or disagreeing with you?

[Anonymous No.11849161]

>>11849138
You obviously don't get it, please read before posting.

[Anonymous No.11849162]

>>11849094
> it is still rolling
but only from the conditions that bear witness to it in that way. It isn't impossible for other states of being (other than similar levels of states such as distance or focus) to view a rock rolling radically different if the being's state is a more or less efficient design of physical laws. However it seems nonsensical that there be "levels" separate from each other like an onion that has layers and layers of better or worse conditions in which laws can be deduced, to a certain extent animals have a methodology that they live by, humans simply spoke and wrote them because we are speaking beings; whatever enlightenment is capable of pushing humans to the next level (previous level being animals) it doesn't seem so difficult to imagine possible in retrospect of the magnificent depth of the universe. If there really is a "oneness" to things it would seem better to consider the ways in which a rock can roll down a hill, or a way in which a living thing considers the surroundings, to be all at once and always happening according to the most absurd methods of representation and reflection. Obviously we can't acquire that any time soon but materialism seems like a crackpot of dullness if treated as dogma. Whatever transcends humanity is probably going to require collective expansion of the mind, I don't think science is capable of causing this as much as it can lay the ground for it's being more probable.

[Anonymous No.11849166]

>>11849142
This is the heart of transcendental idealism by the way. The pure concepts of understanding could still be properties of things in themselves, space and time couldn't tho

So if you believe this you are a transcendental idealist

[Anonymous No.11849170]

>>11849161
> y-y-y-ou don't get it! Time and space dont exist
says the guy thats product of 5bn years of evolution, ok

[Anonymous No.11849179]

>>11849159
Some agreements some differences. We agree on what Kant is saying, but not how he gets there. His claim that space and time are necessary to experience does not guarantee that they are forms of the sensibility as Kant claims. After all, they could simply exist out in the world. What I claim is that can’t seeks a universally foundation for math, and the only way that is possible is space and time being pure forms of the sensibility.

[Anonymous No.11849181]

>>11849170
The earth isn't 5 billion years old, you can't even regurgitate factoids right.

[Anonymous No.11849191]

>>11849179
Okay, so if space and time exist prior to experience, how are they imposed by the subject?

Also, explain "forms of sensibility"

[Anonymous No.11849198]

>>11849162
So are you somewhat saying no truth about reality exists apart from perception because of lack of frame for reference?

[Anonymous No.11849199]

>>11849179
>After all, they could simply exist out in the world
They do, or you could not explain gravity fucking up both.

[Anonymous No.11849213]

>>11849191
So, sensibility is like a satellite dish. It’s passive and simply collects information. But, this information is always represented within space and time.

Space and time are not imposed on reality by the subject. The subject can only possibly experience something within space and time, thus it must represent the thing in itself as being (that which is affecting the sensibility) within space and time.

[Anonymous No.11849219]

>>11849179
You seem to think that the synthetic a priori status of mathematical claims comes prior to the argumentation in the transcendental aesthetics, and that Kant uses mathematics to prove space and time are forms of sensibility. That's not the case at all....

[Anonymous No.11849221]

>>11849199
Kant wrote about gravity. He viewed himself as justifying Newton. It’s out there somewhere, probably only needs a google search

[Anonymous No.11849225]

>>11849219
He doesn’t use math to prove space and time. He gives his argument in TA as you said. But he does argue for the synthetic apriori status of arithmetic and geometry in the intro of preface I believe.

[Anonymous No.11849226]

>>11849213
Goddammit, so is he saying that space and time are properties of the noumena because they are true before experience, that they are necessary bases for experience?

[Anonymous No.11849228]

>>11849226
No, the factalty of sensibility exists before experience. That’s where space and time are.

[Anonymous No.11849234]

Why has /lit/ been invaded by STEMtards?

[Anonymous No.11849235]

>>11849228
WTF

[Anonymous No.11849240]

>>11849219
I found it. This is the introduction to the second edition of Critique of Pure Reason. It goes on...

[Anonymous No.11849241]

>>11849225
>He doesn’t use math to prove space and time

Didn't say that

>But he does argue for the synthetic apriori status of arithmetic and geometry in the intro of preface I believe

Yes, but the ultimate foundation for the synthetic a priori status of mathematics is found in the TA. In the intro he kinda only mentions that mathematics is synthetic, only in the TA there is the proof.

The synthetic a priori status of math does not prove that space and time are forms of sensibility, it's the other way around, space and time being forms of sensibility is what proves the synthetic element in mathematics. Do you agree?

[Anonymous No.11849245]

>>11849234
It's just one guy who's absolutely seething. His claim that Darwin dissproves Kant is hillarious. He must be baiting

[Anonymous No.11849246]

>>11849235
Think of it this way. You must be able to sense before you can sense. Space and time exist in the thing that allows you to sense, rather than in what you sense.

[Anonymous No.11849254]

>>11849198
Truth probably exists outside our reach (if 3D universe has design there has to be some explanation possible from somewhere else), but our level of perception is more like looking at a picture that's been blacked out except for a really small part. I don't think perceiving is causal for reality to exist, but for perception and reality to exist together for truth correspondence seems more finnicky. Things show themselves to other things, and we're able to show things to ourselves, things happen in motion (such as water reacting to rocks) according to the particular things' method, in our case the senses. It seems hair-splitting but imagine a boulder having a method of not moving if water were to splash off it. We can gain frame of reference by reflecting or "standing outside ourselves" to "hold onto" whatever the perception was in an estranged form, acquiring instead of just being "as" it. It's like a philosopher and a lunatic coming to the same conclusion, one possesses the object putting in tangible form and the other is possessed by it.

[Anonymous No.11849259]

>>11849241
The synthetic apriori status of claims within math and ESPECIALLY metaphysics lead Kant to ask, “How are these possible?” So, I must disagree. Kant thinks synthetic judgements apriori are possible well before the TA.

[Anonymous No.11849265]

>>11849245
I hope so. But I do think that there's been an influx of these people lately. Empiricism is a disease. Combine in with an unflinching, unexamined physicalism and you get an almost comicaly awful perspective.

[Anonymous No.11849277]

>>11849241
Sure, the synthetic apriori status of math does not prove space and time are forms of the sensibility. But, it is what launches the investigation and requires an answer, and the status is assumed in the intro.

[Anonymous No.11849292]

>>11849170
No you are retarded, the very fact that you can make the judgement about the age of the earth or evolution or any of that is because of representations given to you through your sensibility. The things in themselves are unknowable, all you have is your representation of the development of the human mind. And the human mind, in its very essence, requires the functions of sensibility, those being space and time.

[Anonymous No.11849294]

>>11849259
You're conflating the psychological states Kant had with the logical ordering of the CRP...

Just because Kant thought mathematics is synthetic a priori before the TA does not mean such thing is philosophically established prior to the argumentation in the TA

[Anonymous No.11849316]

>>11849294
Could I get the situation where he establishes math as being synthetic a priori in the aesthetic. As far as I can tell, the possibility of synthetic judgments a priori is assumed from the start because we have access to such judgments. If actuall, then possible.

[Anonymous No.11849318]

>>11849294
Citation*

[Anonymous No.11849341]

>>11849316
It's because space and time are forms of our sensibility that Kant can say mathematics has a synthetic element to it and is not simply a bunch of vacuous tautologies. It's from the connection of space and time with the world of experience that mathematics get it's synthesising element

[Anonymous No.11849370]

>>11849341
Here is the conclusion of the TA:

>Here we now have one of the required pieces for the solution of the general problem of transcendental philosophy - how are synthetic a priori propositions possible? - NAMELY PURE A PRIORI INTUITIONS, SPACE AND TIME, in which, if we want to go beyond the given concept in an a priori judgment, we encounter that which is to be discovered a priori and synthetically connected with it, not in the concept but in the intuition that corresponds to it; but on this ground such a judgment never extends beyond the objects of the senses and can hold only for objects of possible experience.

caps was my emphasis

[Anonymous No.11849376]

>>11848891
I've been listening to this since you posted it

how is it so good?

[Anonymous No.11849383]

>>11849341
Yes, no disagreement. But for clarification, math must be valid prior to experience in order to be a priori. Let’s actually try to see where we differ. I’ll summarize my position then maybe you try yours. I think Kant notices synthetic judgments a priori in mathematics, and then explains thes with the transcendental aesthetic. What are you saying?

[Anonymous No.11849388]

>>11849370
Yeah, I don’t think we have any legitimate disagreement. We must be completely talking past one another.

[Anonymous No.11849401]

>>11849383
>I think Kant notices synthetic judgments a priori in mathematics, and then explains thes with the transcendental aesthetic

I agree.

I had the impression you thought that the synthetic status of math is what proves what Kant says in the TA (if you're in fact that anon). Maybe I'm crazy

[Anonymous No.11849419]

>>11849401
This is that anon. I am convinced we fight on the same side. Godspeed.

[Anonymous No.11849426]

Time is a spook, space is eternal.

[Anonymous No.11849484]

>>11849221
And Newton has been refuted by EINSTEIN.

Like I said, you are talking about 300 year old science which is irrelevant in 2018

[Anonymous No.11849578]

>>11848833
"In the block universe, there is no "now" or present. All moments that exist are just relative to each other within the three spacial dimensions and one time dimension. Your sense of the present is just reflecting where in the block universe you are at that instance. The "past" is just a slice of the universe at an earlier location while the "future" is at a later location. So, is time just an elaborate mind trick? And more importantly - is time travel possible? Dr. Land's answer to that is "yes". Of course, just hypothetically, since we'd need to figure out first how to travel at "some reasonable percentage of the speed of light". Going to the past would entail using wormholes, like "short cuts through space-time".

[Anonymous No.11849596]

>>11849484
T. caps out at 105 max

[Anonymous No.11849598]

>>11849596
how am I the retard when I am not using refuted science to talk about, fucking science?

[Anonymous No.11849617]

>>11849598
Kant is talking about pre-science, what makes any science at all possible for any conceivable observer in any thinkable universe, so he's still relevant even though I don't really like him or his arguments. You're just clearly married to a dogmatic perspective that is not unmotivated but trivial and uninteresting.

[Anonymous No.11849628]

>>11849617
>Kant is talking about pre-science, what makes any science at all possible for any conceivable observer in any thinkable universe, so he's still relevant
Wow, then why is his pre-science filled with the understanding of time and space then, as brought by the science of his era

sounds like science to me and just because he thinks he is better than science doesnt' mean he is.

[Anonymous No.11849641]

>>11849628
And your understanding of physical spacetime as currently conceived is similarly flawed. The important thing is whatever it is, it's extremely different to our sense of it.

[Anonymous No.11849992]

>>11849071
How does imposing space and time on the world help you do arithmetic though?

[Anonymous No.11850545]

>>11848854
>>11848833
>>11848873
>>11848893
>>11848909
>>11849007
>>11849054
>>11849094
>>11849106
>>11849113
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLbSlC0Pucw

[Anonymous No.11850748]

>>11848873
Brainlet. Just read the critique moron he literally addresses this in the introduction. Space and time are in the framework we're having experience in. It says nothing about how things are in themselves.

[Anonymous No.11851178]

bravo, Kant, bravo HOWEVER what force is compelling you to define space in the first place? or sense? or subject? PURE ANTHROPOCENTRISM. at the end of the day he was an ugly midget attempting to control the elements and 'make his stamp' like every other dickhead throughout time. Noumena is a castrated attempt to try find God again. Good luck

[Anonymous No.11851231]

>>11850748
Kant didn't have unified spacetime, because that was Einstein, and Einstein made moot all of his related commentary; he subscribed to Newton's concept of Time as per the time of his time.

[Anonymous No.11851398]

>>11849135
>“the car is red” is synthetic because non-red cars are possible.
yea but that car, that was necessary, does. Right?

[Anonymous No.11851418]

>>11849053
Science doesn't have the capability to refute Kant yet.

[Anonymous No.11851423]

>>11851418
Sweetie, Kant relied on old Newtonian dichotomy and Eisenstein came around and fixed it. It's already refuted.

[Anonymous No.11851427]

>>11851418

I'm not sure science even aspires to do such thing bro

[Anonymous No.11851432]

>>11851231
Jesus christyou are a retard. You realize what i wrote "makes moot" what you just wrote.

[Anonymous No.11851441]

>>11851423
>>11851427
>STEM cope

[Anonymous No.11851466]

>Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man.

[Anonymous No.11851514]

>>11851427>>11851418

actually sociology disproved science long ago sweety bun honey cream sugar pie :)))) <3

[Anonymous No.11851526]

>>11851514
YEAH by ignoring it completely and coming up with nothing of worth

fucking brainlets

[Anonymous No.11851876]

>His disciples said to him, "When will the repose of the dead come about, and when will the new world come?"
>He said to them, "What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it."