oooookay. So I'm going to go ahead and take a stab in the dark with this one... I really liked the reading, but Hegel and Kant were so intertwined the whole time I'm not sure I'll differentiate them very well, but we'll see.
A priori-
basically, what I got from the reading and a little bit of outside research is that a priori knowledge is a sort of... inherent sense of things. Its just something you're born with, and in this reading, its a knowledge of the ways of nature and morality that comes BEFORE experience. Maybe?
Okay. So now on to KANT:
-NOT empiricist, knowledge comes from reason (euclidean proofs, etc) not experience
- the cause/effect relationship is fallible- we only accept it as true because its familiar
-"tis not, therefore, reason, which is the guide of life, but custom"
-there are SOME connections between experience and reason- but this only happens when knowledge precedes experience? a priori knowledge underlies experiences.
-man and nature are in accord
HEGEL:
-"Man's morality appeared as an instrument inborn in man, which needed no guide but its own dignity. Kant had given a new sense of dignity to men , in which the limitations of nature were not obstacles but the natural conditions of human freedom"
- unification of the mind and the world outside of it.. these two things are opposite?
-thesis vs. antithesis --> experience vs. thought
- there is no reality until we know it (If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it does not make a sound)
- thought PROVES existence
-the knower + knowledge = experience
- importance of the individual vs. his/her environment
-history is an evolution
- "regarding state as an expression instead of an instrument, and end instead of a means"---> he was not teleological enough?
So, I just looked over what I wrote and its pretty cryptic. But hopefully some of it makes sense. If it doesn't tell me and I'll check back later to clarify.
As I understand it, a priori knowledge is independent of experience. It exists in everybody as a basis for reason and for determining causal relationships.
Kant believed that some knowledge had to be a priori “in order to make empirical science possible at all”. That is, there has to be some reality, some basis for thought inherent to humans. We may only see cause and effect as a result of past experiences, but there are some “necessary relations” in nature that are always true, even if they cannot be proven. This sounded to me sort of like a postulate in geometry- something we assume to be true and can start out with in order to create more advanced thoughts.
Kant extended his philosophy to assert that what we know about the “outside” world” affects how we interact with it. So, the knower and what he knows are caught in a cycle; “the knower is active, creative, and thereby becomes a self”.
Hegel took this even farther. He thought that nothing exists until someone realizes its existence. Hegel placed even more emphasis on the individual, justifying “great men” who affected change as “above morality”. His philosophy constantly ties in with the study of History: the everyday progress of the world constitutes the same kind of dialectic change as all reality.
I think I got all of the main ideas in the reading, and didn’t find it that dense or WTF-worthy. BUT, I found myself agreeing with what all of the philosophers (Hobbes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Empiricists, Euclideans) were saying about causality- this felt like a problem, seeing as many of them were contradicting or refuting each other’s idea. (I raised an eyebrow at Hegel’s apparent justification of totalitarianism, of course, but his spin on causality was beyond me). I couldn’t come up with any empirical (or logical, for that matter) evidence of my own that could explain WHY I agreed with one idea or another.
Did anybody have an easier time with this? I’d be interested in hearing * why * anybody preferred one set of ideas over another.
PS. Sorry if I repeated anything Olivia said... I only just see as I'm posting this that she wrote in earlier today.
I agree with Will and Olivia about a priori... Here's a dictionary definition in case anyone wanted it:
a pri⋅o⋅ri
1. from a general law to a particular instance; valid independently of observation.
2. existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience, as a faculty or character trait.
3. not based on prior study or examination; nonanalytic: an a priori judgment.
Kant:
- there is a framework necessary for the mind to understand the world through experience
- space and time define this framework for the basic laws in nature- they are a priori (exist independently of experience)
- nature can only be understood if there is a priori of knowledge beneath what we gain from experience alone
-man is born with a priori of knowledge of nature and morality
-there are moral necessities in nature as well as scientific ones
- priori morality- our moral nature is formed to obey of itself
- man's reason was connected to the workings of the universe
-man is born with morality that needs no direction but its own dignity
-man's free will is a necessity in nature
Hegal:
-there is a profound connection/unity between knower and what he knows. knowledge is dependent on this connection
-every thesis generates its antitheses (dialectic)
-dialectic- opposites ( knower and what is to be known) are united at each step in human progress. together they form knowledge itself
-every process in life needs a contradictory process, in order to have progress the step is uniting these processes
-all progress in history/evolution of life is a sucession of steps
-nothing is independent- there is no reality until we know it
- passing of time= a creative force
-history justifies the spirt of all men
- man is history- only an understanding of history can enable man to understand himself
-we create a better understanding of the present once we understand how it grew from the past
-spirit= reason, expressed through the state
i think "a priori" (as in "without priori) more or less indicate "givens"; something you know without having to use actual experience, so proofs in geometry are a priori
i also think it's worth it to define "empirical" since it a. is (sort of complicatedly) the antonym of "a priori" b. the reading uses it just as much as it uses a priori, and once i looked up empirical, everything made a lot more sense.
empirical-something you know because of experience or experimentation
i always kinda wrestle with this notion, but i'm pretty sure you can get a priori knowledge from empirical knowledge. like you notice something to be true repeatedly enough that you can turn it into a generalized statement that doesn't merit an example. a priori at that point becomes a given. these dudes, especially Hume talked about that some.
(because i can't actually keep my own ramblings out of much, i'll italicize them, so that you can either chose to read them or not)
Hobbes (aka Mr. Everything is A Priori)-
-every effect has a material cause
-the logical cause and effect sequence of things is always right, even if it contradicts our perceived experiences
-we don't need experiences to know things**
[i]at this point i was tempted to combine hobbes and hume's opinion(which is also below)s and say that we don't need experience to know things because our experiences only serve as examples that we have to compile a certain number of before we can make a generalized statement. then i realized that hobbes didn't say anything about custom/patterns, and i was rather confused until i got to Kant, where he meets the two dudes in the middle. the "we don't need experience to know things" bit, although fitting with the rational air of what he said also clashes with it when you think about aristotle. aristotle talked about every CAUSE having a material effect, but then he said that we don't need experiences to know things. i don't know a. how you can reach rational conclusions without the repetition hubes talks about or b. if he's saying the polar opposite of, agreeing with or is totally irrelevent to aristotle [/i]
ANYWAY
Hume (aka Mr Everything is Empirical)
-it's repetition of experience that makes us think we can dictate what will happen
-but it's actually all random and spontaneous
-there's not always/necessarily a connection between cause and effect, but it's something we've observed into one of our little pattern rule things
then everyone was like OH NO THERE'S NO ORDER, NOOO RATIONAL CAUSE AND EFFECT SYSTEMS AT ALL because people just love to make black and white statements. so Kant pulled that shit back a little bit and i think met them in the middle.
Kant:
-from repetition of experience, we can deduce more abstract cause and effect systems. when the empirical is repeated over and over and over again, it becomes an abstract rule
-we have to be able to plug all of our experiences into these rules for them to be legit. deductive information must exist within fo'sho a priori knowledge
-there is an actual reality. the words "subjective" and "truth" don't really co-exist.
-some knowledge has to be given (or a priori) for science to be possible at all
-there are inherent moral givens in humans [i]the limitations to which exist by the human's context?[/i]
Hegel (if i'm understanding it correctly, this was kinda the birth of the reletivism debate)
-there is a direct correlation between the knower and his knowledge
-synthesis of individual realities is progress
-history is awesome because it transcends subjectivity and can reflect new abstract truths, and because it is the ultimate synthesizer and thus the ultimate progress (i might be pulling that out of my ass)
-the state of a given time period is ideally the manifestation of the general consensus about what reality is
[/i]
Kant:
-necessary relations in nature, such as space and time, cause and effect
-underlying framework in nature and thought
-causality is the only way the mind can grasp nature
-moral necessities in nature as well as scientific ones
-a priori knowledge of nature inborn in man
-not empirical
Hegel
-profound unity between knower and what he knows "ego"
-unity of opposites
-every process in life calls out its contradictory process
-reality independent of men
-no reality until we know it
-mysterious spirit
-History is the great transformer
I had a hard time coming up with a definition of a priori. As I was reading I thought it was sort of an inherent relationship with something or knowing of something, but after reading the other posts that doesn't seem very correct.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:50 am Post subject: oooo my brain
This reading really went over my head a lot. Quite honestly at some points in the reading it seemed to me that I was just reading gibberish. However, there were some specific points that helped me outline in my mind the bare bones of what the philosphies of each philospher tried to explain. Before going any further let me try to define a priori:
-In general a priori is like knowledge without explanation. A priori knowledge is what Kant thought that the mind must have some of as well as empircal knowledge. He thought that it was needed as a framework for all the empirical knowledge that we gained in our life.
Wow already talkin about Kant, sweet, so more on Kants beliefs and philosophy: Some knowledge we know inherently already and that this a priori knowledge made empirical sciences or knowledge possible at all. Kant also believed that nature and man (or the mind of man, I think) were in unity or accord. His views on moraltiy linked to closely to his views on science. He beleived in a priori mortality which I think basically meant that like the inherent knowledge he mentioned before we have bits of morality inherently within ourselves without any empirical implications.
So now Hegel. Hegel seemed pretty simlilar in that he beleived in the power of the individual, but his phislosphy also really beleived in the outside world and how it intertwined deeply with the human mind. (I think out of these two philosphers Hegel confused me the most, so I may be getting his words and ideas messed up totally). He beleived that the unity of the human mind and the outside world was combined by "synthesis" (not really sure what that synthesis means) to form a higher synthesis or "knowledge itself". Now this is where my brain starts to fizzle and break: I beleive Hegel goes on to explain how this unity of human mind and outside world can be moved up to another level; The unity of state and people and how when combined they make history. That was a little bit of a shot in the dark, but that was how I interpreted it at first. I think it got a little clearer when the reading went on to his interpretaion of history and how history is always good no matter if their is a war or peace. Because, wars always teach us and how conflict of the "thesis and the antithesis" is what develops our minds and shapes not only our future, but also our past. This was when I was think how this dude must have been pretty freaking idealistic not mention Kant. Both of these views are so big and vast, I think i'm going to need some explanation on Monday...
Define a priori
List major points of each philosopher
Extra credit: What is the relationship between the 2 columns of numbers?
I hope everyone had a nice weekend. Starting with the definition of 'a priori,' here is dictionary.com's definition:
a priori:
(adj.) Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related...
(adj.) Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference...
(adj.) Made before, or without examination; not supported by a factual study
and here is what i took out of the wikipedia's definition:
"From the former"
-used in philisophy to distinguish 2 types of knowledge
-justifications or arguements
-independant of experiance
and a priori justification makes reference to experience.
-empirical experience lies a framework of a priori knowledge.
Here's what I picked up from the reading on Mr. Immanuel Kant:
-Founder of tradition of Philosophy
-Most important theoretical philosopher from Germany
*17th -18th Century Philosophy:
-related to the advances of schience
-Purpose: find foundations for the new science
-Philosopher & Scientist, also mathemetitian & physiscist.
*Thomas Hobbes- every effect has a material cause
-Theory from reading Euclid
-Euclid-famous mathemetition (proofs in geometry)
-Effects flow from their causes logically
*David Hume- (1739) different ideas from T. Hobbes
-"'Tis not, therefore, reason, which is the guide of life, but custom."
-Connect b/t cause & effect - empirical not necessary
-Agreed that some connections in nature have no other sanction than experience, repeated until it becomes habit
-concluded that there are SOME necessary relations in nature
-necessary models of thought
-space & time= basic framework
and then I feel like the section on Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel started out with alot about Kant too, but most of it was repetitive. It did help me put the pieces together a little, and it put a couple of his ideas into more tangible terms. That's what this next set of notes is going to be about.
Kant...
-had a newtonian picture of a uniform time
-causilty is the only way the mind can grasp the workings of nature.
-nature can only be understood if we see that under empirical experience lies a framework of a priori knowledge
-in 1775 had a theory: planets have been condensed from a mass of gas
-Book-"The Critique of Pure Reason," in 1781.
-Man & Nature- profoundly in accord
-Forbidden by king of prussia to lecture or publish on religious matters.
-moral necessities in nature as well as scientific ones
-asked himself "How does ut come about that the human mind so naturally understands what goes on outside it?"
-man and nature- no longer seperate which gave a new status to mankind. (not one that moved up the hierarchial scale, but one that took men 'away from god, and creationism' if you understand what i'm saying. because: the closer we become to being proved to be just like animals, and not these better-than-animal humans, then the less special we become, i guess. )
-Man is not simply a passive reciever, the knower & what he knows influence one another.
-there was a reality independant of men, "thing in it's self" -(does this have anything to do with Plato's cave theory?)
****fyi:(rachel &marilyn) the numbers for the extra credit given on the internet were different from those given in class... and I did the ones in class. do they still count? i think i've figured that pattern out. ***
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
-Philosopher
-had the most political effect
-professor of philosophy
-grew a way of looking at man and states which has overturned empires
-very average student (like Kant)
-he seemed like a very unlucky guy most of the time. in the begining of the reading it talked about how he agreed with Kent about the planets being 7 because it was the necessity of nature, and then someone proved that there was an eighth one. i thought that that was funny. i felt really bad for him though.
-he reallly really liked napoleon
-Book- "The Science of Logic"
-died of cholera in 1831
-believed there was a profound unity between the knower & what he knows ,like Kant, and was perplexed by the same question that Kant had struggled to answer.
-something that's different b/t Kant and Hegel was that Hegel thought of the connection between the knower and what he knows as a unity of opposites, (goes back to socrates) but i think that Kant was talking about how similar the two were, and didn't think of them as opposites.
*i didn't get the conflict between the thesis and anti-thesis thing, but he applied it to the concrete realities of life.
he did have an extremely cool concept about life, death, being, and becoming. (quote on page 482. "But the ceasless activity...llife of the whole.")
-saw progress as a sucession of revolutionary steps. kind of like early evolution? i'm not sure if that's what that passage was implying
-unlike Kant, he denied that there was anything within it's self. (more like aristotle?)
-no reality until we know it
-real=rational, rational=real aka. things exist only because the mind thinks of them...(i don't buy that, hiow would everyone think of stuff existing the same way, then? i think that he basically thought the whole, 'i think, therefore i am' stuff, but to the next level, saying that 'being:thought') maybe the reason i don't like this is because I don't like to think of this leaving us with "no center and no anchor other than an intangible spirit."
i didn't get how Hegel compared the world soul with napoleon....
-fascinated by violent authority, & longed to be dominated by it. (creepy...)
*can someone explain the universal spirit to me?*
-he liked dialectic, alot.
I agree with Olivia that they have a few very similar ideas.
i'll talk more about them in class. as of now, I'm only up to page 64, but it's almost 10, and i forget if the deadline is 10 or 11.
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:57 am Post subject: The trap of reality
A priori, as Kant defined it, is a belief that is not based on experience or nature, but is simply there in your mind to begin with. i loved the bit will said about it being like a postuale in geometry, an assumed truth. and Kant's example of space and time being a priori, meaning that perhaps there is a whole entire aspect of the universe that our minds are simply NOT open to, sent my head reeling.
Kant:
-our minds are limited in a certain way because of the things our minds assume to be true
-nature must conform to causality, because causality is the only way in which the mind can grasp her workings
-some knowledge MUST be a priori in order to make certain science possible.
-Nature and morality are both prioris in the human mind, and they therefore shape our very way of life (a little repetitive i know)
-There are moral necessities in nature as well as scientific ones
-Kant also said that from our knowledge, we use it when we are in the process of learning something else, and that it is our knowing that gives us a self or an ego
He really was a genius, because he's talking about how our minds create a trap for ourselves which we cannot escape from. its like being shut off from a completely different reality because, essentially, our minds arent built to accept any other reality. absolutely mind-boggling.
Hegel:
-there must be a profound unity between the knower and what he knows, and that without this unity, knowledge is impossible.
-he talked about knowledge like it was a battle between the unknowing mind and the outside, impersonal world, and that once the unknowing mind wins that battle, we gain knowledge. didnt really make too much sense.
-he said that everything in life has a contradictory process, and it harkened back to aristotle's belief in the three kinds of being. he said that the BECOMING stage in between unknowing and knowing was the most important step.
-There is no reality until we know it.
-He said that our thinking does more than prove our existence, it creates it. Translated: i think, therefore i am.
It really makes the question "What is truth?" all the more impossible to answer, because even if we know that something is true, what if our minds simply cannot allow us to see past it? its an alarming notion, and i cannot WAIT to discuss it in class.
Priori…I basically agree with everyone above and cannot find a way to rephrase it more intelligently. Props to you guys ☺
So I decided to (mainly) put up quotes about each philosopher that represent some of their main views…I’m really hoping I didn’t mix them up!
Kant
-“His philosophy was such an attempt to close a gap in the foundations of science which had been opened unexpectedly in his boyhood”
-“Some of the connections which we find in nature have no other sanction than experience, repeated until it becomes habit.
-Certain relations in nature (such as space and time) are necessary modes of thought; we cannot imagine a world without them
-“Necessity is something that exists in the mind, not in objects.”
-“Nature must conform to causality because causality is the only way in which the mind can grasp her workings.”
-“The conception of morality necessitates free will as a postulate just as much as the conception of natural science requires necessity as a postulate.”
-Reality that is not dependent on humans or his or her perception of reality
-
Hegel:
-“Saw all progress, whether in the history of man or in the evolution of life, as a succession of revolutionary steps.”
-No reality unless it is experienced (inherently known)
-“We exist by virtue of knowing the outside world--but the world also exists only by virtue of our knowing it.”
-He was very spiritual
-Finds fulfillment in dreams
-Believes that history “is not merely a record of the past. It is a progress, an evolution; and any scheme which disregards history is thought Utopian.”
-“History as the working of a universal spirit. The spirit is reason, and cannot be wrong; and the institution in which this spirit expresses itself is the state.”
-He believes that constitutions must be thought up over long periods of time
-Heroes
-“There is no final form of society”
Herschel:
-Discovered Uranus
-He believed there must be unity between the knower and what he or she knows. The knowledge couldn’t be possible without the unity
-Unity of opposites
Hobbes
-“Every effect has a material cause-and the same cause always has the same effect.”
-“Effects flow from their causes logically, by inner necessity, and we should be able to grasp this necessity intellectually.”
Hume:
--“The sequence from cause to effect seems necessary to us only because it is familiar: we have no reason to expect this sequence to occur again except our habits.”
-“The connection between cause and effect is empirical and not necessary.”
-Even our most carefully formulated knowledge-that is, even science-is built up empirically. The pattern of experience is not, as mathematics is, held together by logical and necessary relations. Experience has to be lived, it cannot be imagined.”
My ‘this quote was so interesting’ quote for this reading (there seems to be one of these a lot)
“In the middle ages, it had occurred to no one to think that the future would be better than the present; no one thought that it would be different.”
I wont really go into that, but its just so interesting that people assumed nothing would change. I can’t even imagine being in that mindset because in today’s world we are always trying to change and become more advanced. Sci-Fi and various other futuristic things are all around us and people are trying to predict the world in blank years from the present. I don’t know, I just thought it was a huge difference and really really weird.
From what I got, a priori was something that we know intrinsically. More or less, it's something we know naturally rather than what we learn through experience. A future discussion regarding evolution? If I could, I could relate this to Darwin. I will spare all of us and save it for when we talk On the Origin of Species
Immanuel Kant "asserted that Euclidean space and Newtonian time are given to the mind a priori" (60). From my knowledge, Euclidean space was in 3-D and Newtonian time asserted that time was along a number time (correct me if I'm wrong). He believed that things such as the said examples above could not be changed and that humans are accustomed to such beliefs. In addition, Kant believed that man and nature were "no longer separate" (61).
Hume said that "necessity is something that exists in the mind, not in objects" (60). Kant argued that Hume described the above as a demonstration that nature gave no evidence for causality. I'm not sure what he really means by this. But this is what I got from Hume.
George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel felt, like Kant, "that there must be a profound unity between the knower and what he knows" (62). Therefore, he believes that knowledge, such as ubiquitous concepts like Euclidean space and Newtonian time, were a priori. Yet a concept that Hegel came up with was that "the knower and what is to be known generate a higher synthesis - generate knowledge itself" (63). This means, I'm guessing, that the general idea and concept of "knowledge" encompasses the being and the general truth in this sense. More so than Kant, Hegel stressed the importance of the individual.
Like I was saying originally, evolution would easily come into discussion here. Yet I'm going to hold those thoughts for another day.
Hershel, who discovered Uranus, was going to name it Georgium Sidus after the British king at the time, George III (the United States's favorite British monarch. NOT). However, the name was vetoed because of George III's unpopular nature and the fact that he went insane. So after awhile, he came up with the name "Uranus."
I agree with what everyone has said so far about a priori being knowledge not connected to experience. I had another definition, but looking at these posts lead me to believe it's a little off the mark.
Seems like all aspects of both philosophers have been covered, so instead of talking in circles & rehashing what everyone else has said, I'd like to ask for clarification on some sentences in the reading.
On page 60, the author said "that different observers may see the same sequence of events in a different order of time." What does this mean? How can can someone see the same thing in different chronology?
On page 67, the author says "Least of all is history made entirely or even mainly by world-historical individuals; it is made, more strangely, by men like Hegel." How so? What makes a man like Hegel more historically influential than a world-leader, etc?
According to what I got from the reading, a priori is something that you understand without being taught, or as it has been said "knowledge independent of experience." This contradicts most of what we have read before, about how Aristotle believed that the process of learning and knowledge begins with experience. I also think that sometimes a priori is something almost subconscious, similar to intuition.
Kant
- believed that nature controls some of our human behaviors, that, as humans in nature, we must conform to nature's "underlying framework."
-a priori is not just an aspect of learning, it is necessary to have for learning to begin; kind of the opposite of what Aristotle thought
-received more attention from non-scientists than scientists, though he was a trained physicist
-trying not really to understand the outside world, but understand how the human mind understands the outside world
Hegel
-like Kant, focused on the mind's understanding of the outside world
- had a great effect on politics
-to achieve true knowledge, there must be a bond between the mind and the subject studied, which Hegel believed to be opposites
-these two things, mind and subject, are bound together by experience
- "Being is thought," one cannot truly exist without knowledge
the order of this reading moves from specific philosophy to general world view and although this is the logical transition i think it might have been more conducive to understanding if it had gone the other way around. that is to say that hegel's view of history, although easier to understand, is derived from his more complicated philosophical doctrine. in this instance it might have better suited the reader to go backwards in essence. i say this because i found myself more interested in the later sections which were more about world application. the last couple of pages has a lot a lot to do with "the end of history" so keep that in mind when we read that. I think that the key concept that hegel introduced is the element of fluidity. He piggybacked off of his predecessors and contemporaries but the ideas he introduced might have very well been more important than the ideas that his ideas revolutionized. The philosophy of kant humes and hobbes although all different, had the common problem universal perhaps to the very concept of philosophy itself: stagnation. there ideas were stagnant in time, but also , and this is more my opinion than it is an interpretation of the reading, they were spatially stagnant. alot of the contradiction seemed to be a mere difference in spatial perception. where one perceived reality subjectively he perceived it to be down and where one believed more strongly in objectivity he perceived reality to be up. Its no accident that the terminology used do describe varying levels of objectivity is the same we use in navigation, a process with set destination and ideal.
Kant broke from the rigidity of his predecessors, a process hobbes and humes had surely begun. But kant introduced the idea that "man is not a passive receiver" "the knower and what he knows influence each other" This was the major stepping stone in a knew direction. But he believed that there was a reality "behind" (again with the spatial restriction) the thing that is known, "the-in-itself." But hegel refuses to concede anything to the limitations of old, and obliterates all remaining distinctions in synthesizing thesis and antithesis with the dialectic. This idea is gaining new relevance with recent advancements in quantum mechanics with the idea that we can physically alter reality on a sub atomic level by just looking at something. This is of course an over simplification. i don't know much about this concept, but it might be worth touching on quickly in class at some point.
Quickly a priory is knowledge obtained independent of experience, the problems presented by creating the duality of a priory and a prosteriori is the question of how what is known intuitively, can be so closely related to what must be experienced and to what is experienced. This raises the notion of archetypes and a thousand other things.
Coming back to hegel's view of history for a second, and trying not to get into fukuyama... " a constitution is not something that can be thought out overnight, but is the work of centuries.... insofar as it is developed by the people" this just seemed like a perfect explanation of the failures in iraq specifically but also in countless of other instances in history where we have learned that for an ideologically progressive governance to be sustained by a people it must first be created by such a people. its for the same reason that lecture style classes have been proven to be less effective than the alternative. teach a man to fish...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
