Welcome to the CB!
You seem to be a very Intelligent young man.
I commend you.
I would just like to say tho, that you do seem to have a condescending attitude towards people on the CB and pixie dust/ fluff boards.
While I never participated in the debate board, I have read some.
Why I never participated there is because, tho I consider myself a Political activist, I found that most there were so deeply ingrained on their views, why bother.
My opinions were not going to change anyone's perspectives.
And quite truthfully I found some posts so whacked and outrageous,and not worthy of my time .
Just because some of us here on the CB CHOOSE to keep our political views to ourselves, doesn't mean we don't care about politics,are stupid,and don't know what is going on in the world.
To assume this would be a huge assumption!
I, myself, am very active in politics.
I support many groups with financial donations, petitioning, letterwriting, phone calls to my Congressmen.
And yes, my right to assemble and Protest.
I took part in the "World says No to War" on Feb.15,2003 in NYC outside the U.N. before the War started;
believing the U.N. is relevant and there were other alternatives.
I keep informed by getting my news from many sources, Indy News Media on line, Reuters,BBC,checking
our Congressional site, knowing what bills are being proposed and how my congressmen are voting.
I have been a member of Move.on.org since it's inception,and am a member of PFAW.
I am signed on to United for Peace and Justice, True Majority,Code Pink and Common Dreams.
I am a Proud Patriotic American who does not like the direction MY country is going in.
about the questions
This is what my son had to say when I asked him about some of the terms you used here:
Yes, I e-mailed my 4.0 Grad.Student son at Rutgers (Soc. Major AND Teacher ) I've never taken Philosphy courses,and it's been a long time since college for me
"a priori (very roughly) means beforehand, apperception is similar it
means that we must make sense of a situation before we can perceive
it. In other words, I must recognize a setting as a home, a
classroom, a store before I can judge anything about that place or
anyone actions in it. - these questions are coming out of philosophy
terminology but I can somewhat answer it using soc. -
as for unified collectivist views - I think he is way off, prominent
ideas today seem to reflect a methodological individualism - in other
words - people believe that society is simply the sum of its parts -
that there is no greater collective - this is the philosophy that
capitalism is based upon. however, in general the question is far too
vague to really mean anything - either he's just throwing out words to
mess with people - or he has an idea that he is not clearly stating so
that he can remain in control of the debate.
the second question doesn't really make sense - it's a chicken and the
egg question - what would apriori reasoning and apperception be based
upon - if not past reasoning, classification or perceptions? there can
really be no such thing as apriori reasoning or apperception that
precedes everything - which is what the question implies. it's a
chicken and the egg question because apriori reasoning can't take
place before someone learns how to reason. It also irritatingly
rehashes postmodern deconstruction (which is basically tearing all
theory down and saying it's all socially constructed - not just things
like racial categories or gender roles but our ideas about these
things, and the scientific method that we use to evaluate our claims,
our notion of logic etc.) His question is basically, is there some
kind of truth that we can attain without being contaminated by our
prejudices toward the former things I mentioned - which postmodern
theory claims are all social constructs. or more simply, if we are
living in a world of illusions how can we ascertain anything as
certain as truth?
back to the first question:
[if we are moving toward any collectivist unified view it is because
of the need for ontological security created by ideas like this - or
rather a world that gives rise to ideas such as these.] - notice how
this sentence sounds important, it does say something but it needs to
be clarified because it is extraordinarily vague - exactly like the
question - I haven't defined what I mean by ontological security (which
is the security that people derive from knowing [ontology - is the
science of knowing] how the world works (or at least believing they
know how it works and what is true and what is not) - a complete lack
of such security - would be not knowing what is real and what is a
complete illusion or not knowing the difference between dream and
reality.
By the way, the questions sound like philosophy essay questions
that can't and shouldn't be answered in the affirmative or the
negative. "
Now, as far as myself, I think you can figure out where I stand on the other issues you raised.
And now I must say that if all the debates were of your quality over on the DB, it would still be there.
For the record, I had no problem with the Debate board being here.
Sincerely, Marilyn
the Bible refers to Lucifer as "the son of the morning."
I'm confused. 
