[kahljorn]

"Just because occurance A happened and occurance B followed does not imply that A caused B. One could simply have happened and the other followed. "

Yea, it could have. If you pick two entirely different events on the different side of the world and then write down their times and say the one that happened first caused the second you'd probably be wrong. Thanks for proving me wrong, asshole.
However, if you want to take two relevant events to the discussion, like let's say gaining sexual experience just because.... first off, you'll have to have sex in order to gain experience. Yay. cause. effect. You had to be there to have the sex, the sex had to happen for you to gain experience. Self, causality-- all rolled into one sweet bundle.

"If causuality were entirely consistent, the very universe could not exist. "

Technically the universe shouldn't exist anyway, so let's just leave that out of the discussion.


"I no longer interpret cause and effect when I remove assumptions. I have done just what Kant said is impossible."

Cause: I no longer interpret cause and effect when I remove assumptions.
Effect: I have done just what Kant said is impossible.

"The starting point for philosophy must be the individual. Any other starting point automatically loses its validity."

The starting point is the universe, the only validity the individual has is in the observation of it; which is entirely unnecessary for the universe to function. See, now you're acting with assumptions and perceptions again. You act like stuff you believe will shake the core of the universe or something.

"However, I feel that for causuality to bear any valid meaning it must have a slight change. I will address this soon. "

Thanks I had a feeling you weren't, but just for the sake of completeness quit posting until you can post your ENTIRE essay. At this point it seems like you're shooting bullshit into the dark. I'm seriously having a hard time even debating with you because what you're saying is so empty and vapid.

"Irrelevant."

You said we were born with it, I corrected you. Rather it develops by means of cause and effect. It's more like we're born with the capability.

"I'm not sure if I understand your point. "

The logic of casuality can easily allow you to disestablish yourself from it.

"Only in the beginning do I remove assumptions. At this point I am merely explicating my experience. "

So first you remove your assumptions and then you explain the experience. Cause: Remove assumptions Effect: Explicate experience.
What do you even mean by removing assumptions? Could you clarify that, because you just sound like a ham. I'm assuming you mean disconnecting yourself from your perceptions or something.

"I mean capable of being exercised in all circumstances."

How could you say it's absolute and yet not being capable of being exercised in all circumstances? Sounds pretty unabsolute.

"The observations are intertemporal. "

If intertemporal were a word I might understand.

"I don't understand what you're getting at here."

What you think is irrelvant, that's the jist.

"No, there aren't. That's technically impossible."

Technically so is ridding yourself of all assumptions(read some kant &#^), yet here we are. Nothing's impossible, it's impassible.


Your experience has ALREADY began, so you can't really argue with what he's saying. The self already exists, and cause and effect has already lead you through the experiences to today. The end.

Oh, also, simply saying things are happening doesn't necessarily make them so. Otherwise I could say I just flew to the moon, and prove scientists wrong.
Anyway, your argument sucks. I find myself bored, post something more interesting than assuming that cause and effect has anything to do with assumptions.