3 September 2003

Kantianism [Filed under: Uncategorized]

My 1961 copy of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines Kantianism thusly:

Kant′i·an·ism (-iz’m)
n. The philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). He held that the mind furnished the forms of experience and the sense organs furnish only impressions. Our knowledge is therefore only subjective. But Kant shows the necessity of a belief in God, freedom, and immortality, if we are to have the institutions of civilization. And he further shows that without the a priori idea of intelligent design in nature we could not recognize any phenomena of life in plants or animals or other organisms.

Now, it has been more than 6 years since read much Kant, and I shouldn’t be considered an expert in anything, so I’m not in much of a position to critique the accuracy of the content of that definition. Certainly, the first half is reasonable, and I seem to recall him saying some things in Der Einzig Mögliche Beweisgrund… that could be understood to mean something like the second half of the definition. I’d even be willing to say that the definition reflects a familiarity with Kantian philosophy about as well as any 5-sentence summary could hope to do. What bothers me is the “But.” Without that little conjunction (that fails, I might add, to conjoin anything), the definition would present a (possibly imbalanced) survey of major themes and ideas Kant dealt with, presumably what one might hope to find in a dictionary. But the “But” transforms the definition into an exegesis, or an editorial, or perhaps an apology of Kantian philosophy, which I would never hope to find in a dictionary.

A more recent (and concise) definition from our friend Webster may be found at dictionary.reference.com.

NP: Sinead O’Connor, Just Like U Said It Would B

Another First! [Filed under: Uncategorized]

I can’t believe that I’m the first to write about this, but nothing else came up on a Google search. I was looking through my referrer logs today and I noticed that I got hit 86 times yesterday from someone supposedly following a link from a website called Jerseyhotels.com (I am not going to link to the page). This strange visitor left only his IP address: 210.192.120.82, which, according to the WHOIS server at APNIC.net, originated in China. Since I highly doubt that the booking page for a hotel site would have linked to me, and that the same person in china would have followed that link 86 times in rapid succession, I am going to go out on a limb and say that I have been spammed. Naturally, I have blocked access to my site from the above IP (the whole subnet, actually), but I’m worried that my interim solution will become untenable as a long-term approach to fighting referrer spam, which ultimately just eats up bandwidth. And money.

(Read more…)