This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
"Curiously enough, however, Hamilton does not explain how it comes about that God, who in the terms of the analogy bears to the conditioned mind the relation which the conditioned mind bears to its objects, can Himself be unconditioned. He can be regarded only as related to consciousness, and in so far is, therefore, not absolute or unconditioned. Thus the very principles of Hamilton's philosophy are apparently violated in his theological argument."
"Hamilton's positive contribution to the progress of thought is comparatively slight.…" This sounds like someone's subjective, personal opinion. Maybe Hamilton's positive contribution to the progress of my thought is comparatively great.Lestrade (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
Clever demonstration of often-forgotten kant principle
The "screaming peen" argument in support of Kant's notion that two halves can never become whole unless there's an incongruity, therefore perfection is noumenal.