Kant attack ad

[billydkid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M-cmNdiFuI

[Bikewer]

Wonderful stuff.

[Sefarst]

Pretty funny.

[NobbyNobbs]

From what I hear, Emmanuel Kant was a real piss-ant, who was very rarely stable.

[Fitter]

From what I hear, Emmanuel Kant was a real piss-ant, who was very rarely stable.
But Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.

[Hyver]

I lol'd

[UserGoogol]

This election, we hear Wittgenstein saying a lot about language being a "game" and that the meaning of words is solely in how they are used. But that isn't what he was saying in 1921.

"What is the case, the fact, is the existence of atomic facts. We make to ourselves pictures of facts. The picture has the logical form of representation in common with what it pictures. The thought is the significant proposition. The sense of a proposition is its agreement and disagreement with the possibilities of the existence and non-existence of the atomic facts."

So which is it? Is meaning derived from the way people use speech in ordinary context, or does it derive from a correspondence between the logical structure of a statement and the structure of reality as atomic facts?

Isn't it time for a philosopher who's able to make his mind? This election, vote Jacques Derrida. I'm Jacques Derrida, and I approve of this message.