Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an article on why Kant is the Indispensable Philosopher for anyone doing philosophy,

Kant: The Indispensable Philosopher
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 54656-2_32
Abstract
Vater explores three themes that, taken together, secure Kant’s continuing relevance for both Anglo-American and European traditions of philosophy.
First, Kant continues to be relevant in the history of philosophy because he invented the genre.
Second, in the wake of Kant’s dawning realization that the space of reasons is social or multi-centric, contemporary explorations of cognition, affect, and communication underscore the social nature of intelligence even as they illustrate its biological history and neurological complexity.
Third, Kant was an eager participant in a broader Enlightenment conversation that included scientists, writers, and public intellectuals.

I believe it is a very BIG [opportunity] LOSS for those who had not read [& understand not necessary agree with] Kant's work, at least the Critique of Pure Reason.

If you have read Kant [his work not from secondary sources], do you Agree/Disagree with the above?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note this commentary on Why Kant is Indispensable;
Quora

Ian Heckman
PhD candidate in philosophy.

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason seems to be one of the most important works of modern philosophy.
Why?
Do philosophers still read it? Is there universal agreement on its meaning?
Can people not trained in philosophy understand it?
It is the most important work of modern philosophy.

But it is not for the faint-hearted.

It is a massive text with the most recent translation totaling over 700 pages. But it doesn’t read like any regular old 700 page volume of philosophy. It reads like 700 pages of the most dense and difficult writing you could ever encounter. But it’s not written like this because Kant was a bad writer. Kant wrote perfectly sensibly elsewhere. But it was written like this because of how pioneering and ambitious the work was and still is.

The Critique of Pure Reason isn’t 700 pages of nonsense. It’s 700 pages of golden insight which leads you ultimately to unraveling and re-raveling our basic understandings of the world. It challenges you. It pushes you like no other work of philosophy I know of. Kant had a tremendous mind who really knew how to explore and scour the depths of human consciousness while barely ever leaving his hometown.

Of course there is the unprecedented nature of the first Critique which others have helped explain in their answers, but the work isn’t important just because of its historical context. It shows us a compelling path of doing philosophy and gaining knowledge about the world which doesn’t rely on the sciences nor logic and reason alone.

It proposes to us a third path.
We can like or dislike this third path or even alter it in our own way, but the way Kant is able to use this third path to illuminate the world and ourselves is powerful.
The fact that we even can search for answers in the Kantian mold is like a whole new method of inquiry has been opened up for us.
And re-reading the Critique of Pure Reason is a lesson in how to think like this every single time.

So yes, philosophers still read it.

No, there is not universal agreement on its meaning. If there was, no one would read it more than once.

And yes, people not trained in philosophy can understand it.
But only if they wish to put in the sustained effort to do so.
It’s not for those who just engage in philosophy for catchy quotables. It’s there for those who are really serious in exploring the interesting questions about our lives.

Suggest reading the comments in the link. Quora

[RCSaunders]

Here is an article on why Kant is the Indispensable Philosopher for anyone doing philosophy,

Kant: The Indispensable Philosopher
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 54656-2_32
Abstract
Vater explores three themes that, taken together, secure Kant’s continuing relevance for both Anglo-American and European traditions of philosophy.
First, Kant continues to be relevant in the history of philosophy because he invented the genre.
Second, in the wake of Kant’s dawning realization that the space of reasons is social or multi-centric, contemporary explorations of cognition, affect, and communication underscore the social nature of intelligence even as they illustrate its biological history and neurological complexity.
Third, Kant was an eager participant in a broader Enlightenment conversation that included scientists, writers, and public intellectuals.

I believe it is a very BIG [opportunity] LOSS for those who had not read [& understand not necessary agree with] Kant's work, at least the Critique of Pure Reason.

If you have read Kant [his work not from secondary sources], do you Agree/Disagree with the above?

Kant is absolutely the worst philosopher in history, and, after Hume, did more to destroy the field of philosophy than any other philosopher.

Kant was an idiot. Only a bigger idiot could admire Kant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an article on why Kant is the Indispensable Philosopher for anyone doing philosophy,

Kant: The Indispensable Philosopher
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 54656-2_32
Abstract
Vater explores three themes that, taken together, secure Kant’s continuing relevance for both Anglo-American and European traditions of philosophy.
First, Kant continues to be relevant in the history of philosophy because he invented the genre.
Second, in the wake of Kant’s dawning realization that the space of reasons is social or multi-centric, contemporary explorations of cognition, affect, and communication underscore the social nature of intelligence even as they illustrate its biological history and neurological complexity.
Third, Kant was an eager participant in a broader Enlightenment conversation that included scientists, writers, and public intellectuals.

I believe it is a very BIG [opportunity] LOSS for those who had not read [& understand not necessary agree with] Kant's work, at least the Critique of Pure Reason.

If you have read Kant [his work not from secondary sources], do you Agree/Disagree with the above?

Kant is absolutely the worst philosopher in history, and, after Hume, did more to destroy the field of philosophy than any other philosopher.

Kant was an idiot. Only a bigger idiot could admire Kant.

Give your argument and justification to support your points, else,
those are noises and blabberings from an ignoramus and idiot as usual.

[Ansiktsburk]

Here is an article on why Kant is the Indispensable Philosopher for anyone doing philosophy,

Kant: The Indispensable Philosopher
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 54656-2_32
Abstract
Vater explores three themes that, taken together, secure Kant’s continuing relevance for both Anglo-American and European traditions of philosophy.
First, Kant continues to be relevant in the history of philosophy because he invented the genre.
Second, in the wake of Kant’s dawning realization that the space of reasons is social or multi-centric, contemporary explorations of cognition, affect, and communication underscore the social nature of intelligence even as they illustrate its biological history and neurological complexity.
Third, Kant was an eager participant in a broader Enlightenment conversation that included scientists, writers, and public intellectuals.

I believe it is a very BIG [opportunity] LOSS for those who had not read [& understand not necessary agree with] Kant's work, at least the Critique of Pure Reason.

If you have read Kant [his work not from secondary sources], do you Agree/Disagree with the above?

I read the prolegomena. I’ve read some lighter of his original works, I’ve read loads of secondary litterature on Kant including lectures on the Kritik. Sounds incredibly boring. I understand that the K will take an enormous time of my few off-work hours. Why read?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an article on why Kant is the Indispensable Philosopher for anyone doing philosophy,

Kant: The Indispensable Philosopher
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 54656-2_32
Abstract
Vater explores three themes that, taken together, secure Kant’s continuing relevance for both Anglo-American and European traditions of philosophy.
First, Kant continues to be relevant in the history of philosophy because he invented the genre.
Second, in the wake of Kant’s dawning realization that the space of reasons is social or multi-centric, contemporary explorations of cognition, affect, and communication underscore the social nature of intelligence even as they illustrate its biological history and neurological complexity.
Third, Kant was an eager participant in a broader Enlightenment conversation that included scientists, writers, and public intellectuals.

I believe it is a very BIG [opportunity] LOSS for those who had not read [& understand not necessary agree with] Kant's work, at least the Critique of Pure Reason.

If you have read Kant [his work not from secondary sources], do you Agree/Disagree with the above?

I read the prolegomena. I’ve read some lighter of his original works, I’ve read loads of secondary litterature on Kant including lectures on the Kritik. Sounds incredibly boring. I understand that the K will take an enormous time of my few off-work hours. Why read?

Not just read but to acquire a thorough understanding [not necessary agree with] of Kant's work.

Try to get a copy of the reference in the OP and note the following post #2 to get an idea why Kant is indispensable to anyone doing philosophy.

As stated, one do not have to agree with all of Kant's view but merely to understand what Kant is talking about.

What is contributive from Kant is he break-up [with his Critical Philosophy] all the fundamental & contentious issues prior to his time, e.g. Empiricism versus Rationalism and tried to build a bridge between them.
It is this breaking-up of the contentious issues that enable one to look afresh and deep into the philosophical fundamentals and from there one can agree with Kant or build one's own views from those foundational issues.

If one do not dig into what Kant had broken up [or plough up] then one will be stuck with the traditional empiricism or rationalism and thus will be a dogmatist and confined to one's tall dark silo.

I have read and researched Kant extensively and I believe whether one eventually agree or disagree with Kant, the effort of even understanding Kant's work is a definite net-positive gain to one's philosophical foundation.

[Scott Mayers]

Here is an article on why Kant is the Indispensable Philosopher for anyone doing philosophy,

Kant: The Indispensable Philosopher
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 54656-2_32
Abstract
Vater explores three themes that, taken together, secure Kant’s continuing relevance for both Anglo-American and European traditions of philosophy.
First, Kant continues to be relevant in the history of philosophy because he invented the genre.
Second, in the wake of Kant’s dawning realization that the space of reasons is social or multi-centric, contemporary explorations of cognition, affect, and communication underscore the social nature of intelligence even as they illustrate its biological history and neurological complexity.
Third, Kant was an eager participant in a broader Enlightenment conversation that included scientists, writers, and public intellectuals.

I believe it is a very BIG [opportunity] LOSS for those who had not read [& understand not necessary agree with] Kant's work, at least the Critique of Pure Reason.

If you have read Kant [his work not from secondary sources], do you Agree/Disagree with the above?

Afraid of me by any chance?

Here is an appropriate summary of his book:

The Critique of Pure Reason was a critique of the pretensions of pure theoretical reason to attain metaphysical truths beyond the ken of applied theoretical reason. Its conclusion was that pure theoretical reason must be restrained, because it produces confused arguments when applied outside its sphere.

If you read it and understand it, you should be able to argue the positions you agree with independent of the author that may have inspired you to your shared beliefs. To me, this is just a work that argued against using logic without premises based upon the senses alone. However, given nature itself manifests reality without a prerequisite to 'prove' itself before hand, I argue that nature MUST have a 'logic' that precedes the opinions of things inside it.

The fear of those like Kant regarding the use of logic related to how logic itself requires a metalogic that itself would then have to be questioned infintely. If you want a more advanced argument that relates, Godel's Incompleteness theorem (second part) dealt with this issue: a logical system cannot be used to 'prove' itself. That is the essence of what Kant was referring to.

My contention with Kant's particular view is that it ignores that one's personal interpretation of the senses themselves are 'intuited'. However, if one limits their initial inputs to nothing itself ....and uses a dynamic means to update a system's logic, there CAN be a successful way to prove things about reality from that. The argument is about politics too because it is about the means of 'proving' among other people within the realm of science in a way that evades the contentious misuse of logic to impose religious or psuedoscientific ideas there. I agree with this but see how it also gets abused when the authorities evolve to abuse their own power in the way Marx argued about political cycles.

The fact is that religion is just such a devolution of abuse FROM a prior good intention of those favoring the 'empirical ONLY' type of processes of thinking. Inductive reasoning is not valid deductively except where the domain is defined in limiting ways, like in many mathematical realms. I run more into those today who have formal education in 'science' who falsely dismiss formal logic by demanding others have FAITH in their authority prior to requiring to prove themselves. This is how the politics robs the right of people to be skeptical. By demanding others first require having a formal degree in physics, for instance, in order to discuss or question things, is no different than the religious authority demanding one read the Bible in order to qualify to speak against its magical essence.

Both logic and science has to work together but also recognizing the real weaknesses of BOTH independently of the other. But again, since Natures' laws themselves don't have a prerequisite to require a degree in science in order for it to be preautorized to 'create' reality, this LOGICALLY has to be recognized as meaning that Nature itself is based upon 'pure reasoning' of some sort. Whether WE can determine this or not is a distinct question about the pragmatic politics involved where 'proof' between each other is necessary to come to formal agreements WHEN necessary.

I fear more that people don't understand formal logic than they do about empirical methodology we use to determine our input premises as sound or not. Empirical method is what each of us do by default because our conscious brains are evolved to induce with priority. This is not to speak against Kant but to ward off the assumption that we have to abandon ANY hope for finding an underlying logic of Nature,....a model of reality, ....that can be argued without any initial assumptions. If Nature can create without being some 'god' apriori, then there HAS to be an apriori cause based on NOTHING whatsoever. Assuming we cannot speak about this metaphysically using only logic is misplacing the distinction of science proper to philosophy in general.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an appropriate summary of his book:

The Critique of Pure Reason was a critique of the pretensions of pure theoretical reason to attain metaphysical truths beyond the ken of applied theoretical reason. Its conclusion was that pure theoretical reason must be restrained, because it produces confused arguments when applied outside its sphere.

If you read it and understand it, you should be able to argue the positions you agree with independent of the author that may have inspired you to your shared beliefs. To me, this is just a work that argued against using logic without premises based upon the senses alone. However, given nature itself manifests reality without a prerequisite to 'prove' itself before hand, I argue that nature MUST have a 'logic' that precedes the opinions of things inside it.
..............

Cannot trace to your reference?
eta: OK found it,
Link

In my tracing I noted the following from Sparknotes,

• Kant’s influence has been immense. No philosopher since Kant has remained entirely untouched by his ideas. Even when the reaction to Kant is negative, he is the source of great inspiration.
  https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/kant/context/
  
  Immanuel Kant is probably the most important philosopher of the past 2,000 years,
  ..
  In 1781, Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, a long and very difficult volume that was met with great interest and criticism. To this day, it remains one of the most discussed and influential works in philosophy.
  https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/kant/context/

In general, 'Sparknotes' is a good source for easy reference but not serious enough to portray Kant's theme seriously.

Scott Mayers:To me, this is just a work that argued against using logic without premises based upon the senses alone.
You need to read what you posted again,

The Critique of Pure Reason was a critique of the pretensions of pure theoretical reason to attain metaphysical truths beyond the ken of applied theoretical reason. Its conclusion was that pure theoretical reason must be restrained, because it produces confused arguments when applied outside its sphere.

You should at least read the whole of this section 1 in SparkNotes re the CPR to get a very general idea on what Kant is onto.

https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/kant/section1/
Kant’s primary aim is to determine the limits and scope of pure reason. That is, he wants to know what reason alone can determine without the help of the senses or any other faculties. Metaphysicians make grand claims about the nature of reality based on pure reason alone, but these claims often conflict with one another. Furthermore, Kant is prompted by Hume’s skepticism to doubt the very possibility of metaphysics.

So it is not against logic but rather Pure Reason which rely on pseudo-logic rather than logic proper.
So there is need to understand what is this pseudo-logic all about.
However before that, there a vast foundation of knowledge one should be equiped with before facing the problems of Pure Reason as its pseudo-logic.

Btw, the OP is about Why Kant is The Indispensable Philosopher, if not, why do you think Kant is not indispensable?
For example, R Saunders do not think so, because to him Kant is an idiot but he did not provide any justifications for his view.

I am not interested to go into depth to argue his views [contentious ones] in this OP.

[RCSaunders]

Here is an article on why Kant is the Indispensable Philosopher for anyone doing philosophy,



I believe it is a very BIG [opportunity] LOSS for those who had not read [& understand not necessary agree with] Kant's work, at least the Critique of Pure Reason.

If you have read Kant [his work not from secondary sources], do you Agree/Disagree with the above?

Kant is absolutely the worst philosopher in history, and, after Hume, did more to destroy the field of philosophy than any other philosopher.

Kant was an idiot. Only a bigger idiot could admire Kant.

Give your argument and justification to support your points, else,
those are noises and blabberings from an ignoramus and idiot as usual.

I don't have to support my points. You're doing a fine job all by yourself.

[Sculptor]

Here is an article on why Kant is the Indispensable Philosopher for anyone doing philosophy,

Kant: The Indispensable Philosopher
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 54656-2_32
Abstract
Vater explores three themes that, taken together, secure Kant’s continuing relevance for both Anglo-American and European traditions of philosophy.
First, Kant continues to be relevant in the history of philosophy because he invented the genre.
Second, in the wake of Kant’s dawning realization that the space of reasons is social or multi-centric, contemporary explorations of cognition, affect, and communication underscore the social nature of intelligence even as they illustrate its biological history and neurological complexity.
Third, Kant was an eager participant in a broader Enlightenment conversation that included scientists, writers, and public intellectuals.

I believe it is a very BIG [opportunity] LOSS for those who had not read [& understand not necessary agree with] Kant's work, at least the Critique of Pure Reason.

If you have read Kant [his work not from secondary sources], do you Agree/Disagree with the above?

Kant is absolutely the worst philosopher in history, and, after Hume, did more to destroy the field of philosophy than any other philosopher.

Kant was an idiot. Only a bigger idiot could admire Kant.

One thing he never did was indulge in useless polemic.
You do not have any kind of argument and I can only assume you haven't got the slightest fucking clue about Kant or anything he ever said.

[Sculptor]

Kant is absolutely the worst philosopher in history, and, after Hume, did more to destroy the field of philosophy than any other philosopher.

Kant was an idiot. Only a bigger idiot could admire Kant.

Give your argument and justification to support your points, else,
those are noises and blabberings from an ignoramus and idiot as usual.

I don't have to support my points. You're doing a fine job all by yourself.

You have not made any points because you speak from ignorance.
All you have done is take a big SHIT on the thread.

[Scott Mayers]

Here is an appropriate summary of his book:

The Critique of Pure Reason was a critique of the pretensions of pure theoretical reason to attain metaphysical truths beyond the ken of applied theoretical reason. Its conclusion was that pure theoretical reason must be restrained, because it produces confused arguments when applied outside its sphere.

If you read it and understand it, you should be able to argue the positions you agree with independent of the author that may have inspired you to your shared beliefs. To me, this is just a work that argued against using logic without premises based upon the senses alone. However, given nature itself manifests reality without a prerequisite to 'prove' itself before hand, I argue that nature MUST have a 'logic' that precedes the opinions of things inside it.
..............

Cannot trace to your reference?
eta: OK found it,
Link

In my tracing I noted the following from Sparknotes,

• Kant’s influence has been immense. No philosopher since Kant has remained entirely untouched by his ideas. Even when the reaction to Kant is negative, he is the source of great inspiration.
  https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/kant/context/
  
  Immanuel Kant is probably the most important philosopher of the past 2,000 years,
  ..
  In 1781, Kant published his Critique of Pure Reason, a long and very difficult volume that was met with great interest and criticism. To this day, it remains one of the most discussed and influential works in philosophy.
  https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/kant/context/

In general, 'Sparknotes' is a good source for easy reference but not serious enough to portray Kant's theme seriously.

Scott Mayers:To me, this is just a work that argued against using logic without premises based upon the senses alone.
You need to read what you posted again,

The Critique of Pure Reason was a critique of the pretensions of pure theoretical reason to attain metaphysical truths beyond the ken of applied theoretical reason. Its conclusion was that pure theoretical reason must be restrained, because it produces confused arguments when applied outside its sphere.

You should at least read the whole of this section 1 in SparkNotes re the CPR to get a very general idea on what Kant is onto.

https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/kant/section1/
Kant’s primary aim is to determine the limits and scope of pure reason. That is, he wants to know what reason alone can determine without the help of the senses or any other faculties. Metaphysicians make grand claims about the nature of reality based on pure reason alone, but these claims often conflict with one another. Furthermore, Kant is prompted by Hume’s skepticism to doubt the very possibility of metaphysics.

So it is not against logic but rather Pure Reason which rely on pseudo-logic rather than logic proper.
So there is need to understand what is this pseudo-logic all about.
However before that, there a vast foundation of knowledge one should be equiped with before facing the problems of Pure Reason as its pseudo-logic.

[NOTE: You don't have to read or digress further with me on this if you understand my points. It might be more fruitful for you to respond to others instead who can learn something beyond my own limited interests.]That said,...

I've got all the background. The reference to 'pure reasoning' is precisely the fact that from ancient times that peeked at Aristotle (before the dark came along and many works of others just suddenly disappeared), people thought that you SHOULD be able to reason strictly in terms of philosophical dialectic and logic alone. The trick was to find which apriori statements could be accepted.

Logic was recognized to be such a successful 'mechanism' to reason by that many figured that one should be able to determine all of reality by analyzing logic with only the minimalist of premises based solely on self-evident truths and tautologies. This is before the separation of science from logic. Science pre-separation from logic was the aposteriori evidence one could get from ones environmental surroundings. Logic acted to 'validate' given inputs (premises) to functional outputs (conclusions) meaning that it did not care whether that actual inputs were 'sound' or based on actual facts. As such, what matters is that the conclusion follows only IF the inputs were assumed true.

But the contention between different philosophies, especially religious ones, were about what should be accepted as real inputs and whether the systems of logic are themselves mapped to reality when considering Nature. Which apriori statements one chose could alter the conclusions and so many begun to distrust reasoning using only logic. That sensory data could be presumed was troublesome because it started from anything but the simplest truths. What is sight or consciousness could not be determined by assuming them, was the thinking.

Kant came at a time when both logic and what we sense was both being used but most still believed that one could argue from pure reasoning without using the senses. ("science" is from 'to see' or sense in general, where logic is the mechanical means to calculate by symbols, thoughts or ideas alone. Logic comes from 'to look' or 'log').

Kant was proposing the extreme of distrusting formal deductive logic as anything real but useful ONLY if one uses a proper system and restricting the inputs to aposteri, scientifically observed data. Bertrand Russell, Hilbert, and Whitehead still believed by 1900 that this could be done contrary to Kant. Only until Godel and Turing demonstrated the hard proofs (not Kant) showing that there are real limits to using 'pure reasoning' from simple foundations in thought alone.

However, eventually many adopted the practical 'science' as requiring Kant's respect of restricting logic as a tool ONLY.

I disagree because I have figured out a theory based on thought that can express how physics operates. But this does not replace science proper. It is founded upon philosophical metaphysics. Kant did not even think metaphysics should be permitted to theorize by armchair meditations. And to this I am most against. The 'empirical' -only process is functional to work backwards from observations to make reasonable guesses at what might true foundationally. But reality still operates from foundations that begin without ANY inputs at all or it reduces to a religious concept. So whether formal science needs to rely on beginning ONLY from observing without questioning the observer, I hold that we CAN still find a bottom up approach using pure reasoning from apriori nothing at all.

So Kant is not necessary that interesting today because of his strict belief that apriori inputs should not be used in philosophy (metaphysics) AND that the actual proofs to questioning whether we can find such a universal system of reasoing that can solve all problems imagined came later with more significance. Note that theoretical physics uses both metaphysics and logic but bases physics properly upon the empirical observations as initial inputs because it deals with practicality and enables us to move forward technologically.

But I also do not frown on Kant either. He was still a major contributor that influenced the transition to modern science. [I have his "Critique of Pure Reasoning" on my shelves but have to be more selective for what I invest in reading....especially where I understand his ideas as it passed on through others indirectly and with already a greater detail of the proofs mathematically by others that Kant did not have.]

[Sculptor]

For my money Kant did not answer the problems set down by Hume who remains his superior, though he did try.
Part of Kant's big problem was that he was under the thrall of Prussian aristocratic patronage and fell way short of a critique of religon and was circumspect in his agnostic position prefering to allow christians a divine basis for morality, not because he clearly affirmed the existence of god, but because atheism was a "buring issue" for him and many of his contemporaries.
Whehter this part of his thinking was just self protective or downright lazy, remains as an inherent tension in his work.

Here we see him toadying up to the big boys in "Was ist Äufklarung?"

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/w ... enment.htm

[Veritas Aequitas]

I disagree because I have figured out a theory based on thought that can express how physics operates. But this does not replace science proper. It is founded upon philosophical metaphysics.

Kant did not even think metaphysics should be permitted to theorize by armchair meditations. And to this I am most against.

The 'empirical' -only process is functional to work backwards from observations to make reasonable guesses at what might true foundationally.

But reality still operates from foundations that begin without ANY inputs at all or it reduces to a religious concept. So whether formal science needs to rely on beginning ONLY from observing without questioning the observer, I hold that we CAN still find a bottom up approach using pure reasoning from apriori nothing at all.

So Kant is not necessary that interesting today because of his strict belief that apriori inputs should not be used in philosophy (metaphysics) AND that the actual proofs to questioning whether we can find such a universal system of reasoning that can solve all problems imagined came later with more significance. Note that theoretical physics uses both metaphysics and logic but bases physics properly upon the empirical observations as initial inputs because it deals with practicality and enables us to move forward technologically.

Noted all your points except to comment on some of the above.

Kant in fact did theorize from his 'armchair', if not how else, he was not into experiments nor emphasized on analyzing a posteriori empirical evidences.

Kant's focus is on the a priori, i.e. not post experience, but the a priori is actual pre-experience of humanity via adaption and evolution. Kant denied the a priori are basic instincts, but Kant's a priori are embedded in the brain/DNA via evolution since 4 billion years ago. How else, surely it is not from a God!
We should always bear this point in mind when reading Kant.

Thus when Kant worked 'top-down' i.e. his Copernican Revolution, it is not with reference to any post-experience nor basic instincts but the relevant adapted a priori embedded 'programs' of human nature, i.e. Nature not nurture.

The bottom-up approach will not work realistic because one has to assume there is already something there [without proof nor self-certainty], the thing-in-itself before anything else without consideration to the human self. This open the path for the claim of a God, Soul, etc. as thing-in-itself existing prior-to and independent of the humans conditions.

Whereas for Kant's top-down Copernican Revolution approach his starting point is the self, the conscious self-aware self and work backward via the a priori to discover what the whole shebang of reality and life is about.
It is from this top-down basis where we open a pandora box of reality and the self and using that as a ground to discover the complexity of possible experience.

Because Kant dug very deep into reality, one can ground and prefix Kantian philosophy to any sort of knowledge known or possible to be known. [with 'certainty' on what is impossible to known, e.g. God, etc. ].
This is where I have long list of folders in my Kant directory, i.e. Kant & Science, Physics, QM, etc. Kant & Mathematics, Kant & Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, neuroPsychology, Evolutionary Psychology. Kant & Religion, Spirituality, Metaphysics, logic, epistemology, Morality & Ethics. Kant & the Aesthetic. Kant & Analytic Philosophy, & Idealism, and so on.

Seem like Kantian philosophy can cover everything within philosophy and reality.
You got any idea what subject Kantian philosophy will not cover within the range of philosophies?

[Veritas Aequitas]

For my money Kant did not answer the problems set down by Hume who remains his superior, though he did try.

I am very interested.
Where are the links to support this point that Kant did not succeed in answering Hume?

I read and noted Kant did resolve all the problems raised by Hume, otherwise he would have been sent to the philosophy-gallows then and not be as successful as he is now.

Part of Kant's big problem was that he was under the thrall of Prussian aristocratic patronage and fell way short of a critique of religon and was circumspect in his agnostic position prefering to allow christians a divine basis for morality, not because he clearly affirmed the existence of god, but because atheism was a "buring issue" for him and many of his contemporaries.
Whehter this part of his thinking was just self protective or downright lazy, remains as an inherent tension in his work.

Here we see him toadying up to the big boys in "Was ist Äufklarung?"

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/w ... enment.htm

Kant did critique the Abrahamic religion especially Chritianity and its Theology very severely and left them nothing to respond.
He wrote,
Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_ ... are_Reason

His criticism was so severe that he was reprimanded by the authorities;

He strongly criticises ritual, superstition and a church hierarchy in this work.

Royal censorship
The First Piece originally appeared as a Berlinische Monatsschrift article (April 1792). Kant's attempt to publish the Second Piece in the same journal met with opposition from the king's censor. Kant then arranged to have all four pieces published as a book, routing it through the philosophy department at University of Jena to avoid the need for theological censorship. Kant was reprimanded for this action of insubordination. When he nevertheless published a second edition in 1794,
the censor was so irate that he arranged for a royal order that required Kant never to publish or even speak publicly about religion.
Wiki ibid

In the CPR Kant asserted and justified 'It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to prove the existence of God'

I believe Kant was a closet atheist but self-declared as Deist [believing in a reasoned-God] and that was probably to safeguard his professorship tenure given the threat he received from the King.