On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 06:26 -0400, Judy Prince wrote:
> Of course I am sorry that you feel personally insulted by my message,
Hi Judy, almost everything, if not all, has been a return to Kant on
space as you suggested, so no worries otherwise.
It is perhaps (or should I say possibly) not a good idea to accuse
someone on a public forum of being a sad cocaine addict. The small
matter of criminal and civic libel which may force the very supportive
and generous academic institution which funds and hosts this list to
close it down and thereby, such an accusation becomes a denial of
freedom of speech, which for Kant is a spatial question.
It is quite incorrect to say that the differences between Kant and
Einstein are because Kant did not have access to non-euclidean geometry.
Kant did have access to non-euclidean geometry and Einstein did not say
this. The number of times I see this claim is the number of times that
Kant and Einstein are not read, as if ideas have become commodities on
supermarket shelves that can be picked up at random while belief is
transferred to a public relations discourse as the art of not telling
the truth and not getting caught while doing so. Public relations
henceforth is a religion which denies freedom of religion.
Maybe we differ over freedom of religion. While I have a strong belief
in freedom of religion I am uncertain as to your position on this
question. While, as Marx said, religion remains the opiate of the
masses, there can be no freedom of religion. It does appear that you
have positioned religion as an opiate, thereby denying the right to
freely practice religion.
Anyways, best wishes, Chris Jones.