The above problem is generic to all similar situations.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:26 amExactly. But if we are to speak statistics here - something written in the last 20 years is far more likely to use the meaning of words as they are colloquially used (and therefore - as I understand them) than if it were written 300 years ago. Don't you think? Metaphysics is a tricky field!Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:02 am The same dilemma is applicable to all past authors.
That is circular. How do you know that you understand? How do you know that the Kantian community understands? What if you are all, collectively wrong?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:02 am The 90% objectivity is based on all the understanding [not necessary agree with] of Kant's major theories that are expressed in his books in consensus within the Kantian community including some disputed points between various camps on certain critical issues.
Your way of thinking about Kant is in direct opposition to the scientific epistemology (which is self-correcting). How do you test that you understand? How do you reproduce the understanding? How do you falsify your own claim to understanding?
That is PRECISELY the point. What does is mean 'to understand'? Is it a feeling or is it something that you can verify objectively?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:02 am It is possible that those who claimed to understand [not necessary agree with] Kant fully could be wrong. But that is beside the point as Kant is not available to confirm it at present.
Do you agree rhetorically or empirically? Because without empiricism you have nothing...
I would love to see Kant's analytic approach to analyzing the ontology of 'reason'Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:02 am However many questions were raised during Kant's time and he did explain whatever doubts that were raised.
He even wrote a Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, to supplement greater understanding of his Critique of Pure Reason.
Specific to Kant in this case, if you have not spent the necessary minimal hours, I personally believe you will not have sufficient understanding to have a meaningful serious [not casual] discussion on Kant's philosophy. My purpose is to avoid wasting time on inevitable irrelevant issues in this case with Kant.
I will readily avoid discussing issues re Computer Science and Programming with you because I have not covered sufficient grounds on the subject.