Please help me with this Kant info--can you translate this please?
457503
With Kant's claim that the mind of the knower makes an active contribution to experience of objects before us, we are in a better position to understand transcendental idealism. Kant's arguments are designed to show the limitations of our knowledge. The Rationalists believed that we could possess metaphysical knowledge about God, souls, substance, and so; they believed such knowledge was transcendentally real. Kant argues, however, that we cannot have knowledge of the realm beyond the empirical. That is, transcendental knowledge is ideal, not real, for minds like ours. Kant identifies two a priori sources of these constraints. The mind has a receptive capacity, or the sensibility, and the mind possesses a conceptual capacity, or the understanding.\n\nIn the Transcendental Aesthetic section of the Critique, Kant argues that sensibility is the understanding's means of accessing objects. The reason synthetic a priori judgments are possible in geometry, Kant argues, is that space is an a priori form of sensibility. That is, we can know the claims of geometry with a priori certainty (which we do) only if experiencing objects in space is the necessary mode of our experience. Kant also argues that we cannot experience objects without being able to represent them spatially. It is impossible to grasp an object as an object unless we delineate the region of space it occupies. Without a spatial representation, our sensations are undifferentiated and we cannot ascribe properties to particular objects. Time, Kant argues, is also necessary as a form or condition of our intuitions of objects. The idea of time itself cannot be gathered from experience because succession and simultaneity of objects, the phenomena that would indicate the passage of time, would be impossible to represent if we did not already possess the capacity to represent objects in time.\n\nAnother way to understand Kant's point here is that it is impossible for us to have any experience of objects that are not in time and space. Furthermore, space and time themselves cannot be perceived directly, so they must be the form by which experience of objects is had. A consciousness that apprehends objects directly, as they are in themselves and not by means of space and time, is possible--God, Kant says, has a purely intuitive consciousness--but our apprehension of objects is always mediated by the conditions of sensibility. Any discursive or concept using consciousness (A 230/B 283) like ours must apprehend objects as occupying a region of space and persisting for some duration of time.\n\nSubjecting sensations to the a priori conditions of space and time is not sufficient to make judging objects possible. Kant argues that the understanding must provide the concepts, which are rules for identifying what is common or universal in different representations.(A 106) He says, "without sensibility no object would be given to us; and without understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty; intuitions without concepts are blind." (B 75) Locke's mistake was believing that our sensible apprehensions of objects are thinkable and reveal the properties of the objects themselves. In the Analytic of Concepts section of the Critique, Kant argues that in order to think about the input from sensibility, sensations must conform to the conceptual structure that the mind has available to it. By applying concepts, the understanding takes the particulars that are given in sensation and identifies what is common and general about them. A concept of "shelter" for instance, allows me to identify what is common in particular representations of a house, a tent, and a cave.\n\nThe empiricist might object at this point by insisting that such concepts do arise from experience, raising questions about Kant's claim that the mind brings an a priori conceptual structure to the world. Indeed, concepts like "shelter" do arise partly
642906
Kant believed that a priori truths could be found in the two areas; mathematics and the categories which organize the material of experience and science. Kant divided a priori truths into two\ncategories: the synthetic and the analytic. Traditionally, mathematical propositions were seen as both analytic and a priori. Kant, however, classifies both mathematics and the categories as synthetic a priori. Math is synthetic a priori because it depends on the pure intuitions of the elements of time and space. Kant argued time and space were central intuitions to mathematical knowledge, and were thus the reasons for his grouping mathematical truths in the synthetic a\npriori. Our categories are identified as synthetic a priori because denying them does not lead to a contradiction. On the other hand, these categories are central to experience. Kant used the example of causality, in the "Second Analogy" of the Critique of Pure Reason, to demonstrate that the concept of an "event" having a "cause" must be connected before we can give apply either notion. This connection can only be a synthetic one, since it is not tautological.
547373
Good use of symbols. I like how line 2 fits with the last two lines, it brings unity to the poem. Towards the end I think I got a little bit of a glimpse of what the poem might be about, but ultimately I feel like the message is hidden from me. It seems the third- and fourth-to-last lines are the culmination of the poem; is it possible to reword some of the earlier lines so as the reader can share what you're feeling when they reach the end?\n\nRegarding parenthesis: as long as you know what they mean then they're fine.
935313
I found this but it seems to be in German\n\nhttp://www.basf-cc.de/NR/rdonlyres/57B4A1EE-4498-4EA9-8853-217BC12715A6/56922/SDB_D___Lentan_VZ_33_VZ___09_04.pdf
740888
there is some proverb . i have forgotten the actual words. it is like tea calling the teapot (kettle ) black or some thing. anyway i have given the clue. somebody will come out with proper  proverb for u here.
474294
hey, can you translate this into english? thanks
639598
it means exactly what it says.\nyou failed to supply a required argument for a function/object
252483
perhaps if you wrote your question (additional details) in better english it would be easier to understand what you say.  You're intro to the question is very well written...but unfortunately I can't figure out what you mean by the second sentence.  SORRY
903246
Hogen, a Chinese Zen teacher, lived alone in a small temple in the country. One day four traveling monks appeared and asked if they might make a fire in his yard to warm themselves.\n\nWhile they were building the fire, Hogen heard them arguing about subjectivity and objectivity. He joined them and said: "There is a big stone. Do you consider it to be inside or outside your mind?"\n\nOne of the monks replied: "From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an objectification of mind, so I would say that the stone is inside my mind."\n\n"Your head must feel very heavy," observed Hogen, "if you are carrying around a stone like that in your mind."
748404
On the rim of a £2 coin, it's a quote from Isaac Newton.\n\n (He's saying that he couldn't have got to be the great scientist that he was without having the work of other scientists before him to work with) \n\nWikipedia will tell you that it has been "mistakenly" attributed to Isaac Newton - but although it has been used by other people before him - the quote is most famous for Newton's use.
160150
My incredibly loose translation:\n\n1. If I was loved like I want to be loved\n2.  What on the whole Earth\n3.  and evil throughout life\n4.  should I fear if you loved me.\n5.  All emotional and physical pain\n6.  Love would cut through, if you were mine\n7.  Just like, as I have heard for the most part,\n8.  Fresh water springs come up through bitter saltwater.\n9.  I feel joy, not fear, when with you,\n10. I wait for death, without worrying about sickness,\n11. upon a mountain; Though the surge\n12. of the flood waters from far away\n13. flung miles of roaring foam into the gorge\n14. below us, as far as an eye can see.\n\nInterpretation\nLines 1-4: If I was loved like I wanted to be, there is nothing for me to fear.\nLines 5-8: Love conquers (or cuts through) all fear, just like fresh water springs cut through the saltwater above it.\nLines 9-10: When with you, I feel joy and fear nothing, not even death.\nLines 11-14: Though the floodwaters rage below us, we fear nothing.
681033
According to Wikipedia, the english translation of the paper can be found on pages 62-84 of this book...\n\nQuantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton Series in Physics)\n\nhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691083169/103-4626648-0161449?v=glance&n=283155
374230
"In essence,.." = "Basically,"\n\n"The essence of..." = "the main(basic) part of..."\n\n"Time is of the essence...." = "Time is of the utmost importance"
1045193
By saying that knowing is not enough, he's saying that if you have knowledge and do nothing about it, it's useless.  You must apply the knowledge to some useful area.  By saying that a will is not enough, he's saying that even if you have the will, it won't matter unless you do something about it.  Both parts of the quote essentially are saying that you can't just be idle (with will and knowledge); you must use what you have.
814735
Your English sentence is very poor. You probably mean something like this: One who thinks only about the score is a fool => Celui qui ne pense qu'aux points est un imbécile.\n\nP.S. Beware of online translators. The translation quoted by A Believer!!! is all wrong!!!
144290
This is a better link that the previous one posted here!! try it! \n\nhttp://pubs.logicalexpressions.com/Pub0009/LPMArticle.asp?ID=305
756441
The quote is from Descartes' 'Discourse on Method'\n\nThe general idea is that he questions what he knows.  Assume that a grand deciever was capable of changing all you percieve (picture the Matrix etc, where something could make you see, smell etc things that aren't really there).   \n\nThe question is what can you trust.  The first assumption he makes is that no matter what 'reality' is,  the fact that he can consider his own existience, then he exists in some fashion.  'I think,  therefore I am'.  Even if he's decieved about everything,  he can trust that part. \n\nDescartes then goes on to prove the existence of god.   Quite an interesting book.