Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

[Sculptor]

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?

Kant wrote before the Internet, so he did not leave links. You will have to read Hume and Kant to judge for yourself.

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.

Oh really?
Which problems do you mean?

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.

I said he fell short. in his critique. I did not mean to imply he had no criticism. In particular he could not allow himself to accept a atheist stance as he was forced by circumstance to "obey" (as cited).

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.

He may well have been just like Spinoza, but feared the Noose.
We'll never really know

[Scott Mayers]

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.

What many in scientific circles do not normally recognize is that most of any methodology they embrace had to begin from philosophy and 'arm chair' dialectic. So I agree that Kant too was this necessarily, as was even most theoretical physicists up to the end of the 'modern' era [the old guard of scientists before the approximate 1960s].

"a posteriori" I believe originated as meaning "without posited (assumption)", where Postulates were assumed as 'posed' assumptions of the system of logic one uses. This might be of those who used "a-" to mean "without". Similarly, "a priori" or "apriori", means "without prior" state. So, in consideration of modern language, "aposteriori" is anything not assumed, but 'observed'. The 'apriori' statements were originally already based upon the postulates of the system, like the 'tautologies' but referenced anything one thought was logically self-evident. Yet this CAN and HAS led to many to presume God (or other religious concepts) as being self-evident.

If Kant argued for anything 'apriori' as based upon the senses, this is an unusual interpretation where other philosophers might prefer to call these 'aposteriori'. Maybe this is why he's less notable as others BY scientists? He may have been trying to save the ideal of 'apriori' by interpreting our sensations as all that is self-evident. Philosophers of science may have preferred to opt for calling such observables as "aposteriori" because science became the communal institute that does not interpret the subjective perspective as self-evident when it cannot be demonstrated. Rather, science adopts a form of political meaning of 'proof' as requiring consensus of a collection of people's self-evident claims where their interpretations happen to align.

Philosophers define their own terms usually as it is appropriate to be sure the listener understands their perspective. But whether their own definitions align with the general consensus of philosophers is up to question. Charitably, I interpret Kant as arguing for one to judge reality from the subjective perspective of their senses (like science does now) but without concern to consensus. In this way, I agree. This is an issue that I have a hard time expressing among others who do not recognize that science (the institute) is based upon "sense" and has to respect the subjective perspective when attempting to promote science to those not formally educated.

I take issue with most science forums because they oddly do not recognize that if they are to sincerely respect the ideals of science, they have to begin by respecting the subjective viewpoints of those they are appealing to rather than the arrogant expectation that people learn to embrace 'authorities' of the scientific instutions. Why should a skeptic of the institution of science first require believing in them in order to learn why one should believe in 'science'? It is hypocritically at odds to the logical ideals of science that one 'selling' science should demand many expectations of 'proof' that prerequires faith in anything one credits as 'authoritative' when this begs the question. In this way, ...and if this is what he actually argues for, I respect Kant's approach and would consider him rightfully a philosopher of science needing respectful notice.

[Sculptor]

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.

... and predicted the nebula hypothesis of the formation of the solar system. Proposed and predicted gas nebulae elsewhere in the universe and correctly prdicted the shape of the milky way. He also had several insights into geology.
Not bad for an armchair philosopher

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

What many in scientific circles do not normally recognize is that most of any methodology they embrace had to begin from philosophy and 'arm chair' dialectic. So I agree that Kant too was this necessarily, as was even most theoretical physicists up to the end of the 'modern' era [the old guard of scientists before the approximate 1960s].

Agree.
That is why I had been insisting 'philosophy-proper' [in a range of degrees] overrides all human knowledge. i.e. it is 'meta' thus philosophy can be prefix to any subject, so we have the terms like "philosophy of this or that", and "philosophy of whatever".

"a posteriori" I believe originated as meaning "without posited (assumption)", where Postulates were assumed as 'posed' assumptions of the system of logic one uses. This might be of those who used "a-" to mean "without". Similarly, "a priori" or "apriori", means "without prior" state. So, in consideration of modern language, "aposteriori" is anything not assumed, but 'observed'. The 'apriori' statements were originally already based upon the postulates of the system, like the 'tautologies' but referenced anything one thought was logically self-evident. Yet this CAN and HAS led to many to presume God (or other religious concepts) as being self-evident.

Kant defined a priori as,

A priori meaning thereby that we do not derive it immediately from Experience,
but from a Universal Rule, -- a Rule which is itself, however, borrowed by us from Experience. B1
In what follows, therefore, we shall understand by a priori Knowledge,
not Knowledge independent of this or that Experience,
but Knowledge Absolutely Independent of all Experience. B2

Kant adopted the following basic distinction between a priori and a posteriori is stated as;

The distinction between a priori and a posteriori in the century before Kant was used to distinguish between modes of logical demonstration:
'When the mind reasons from Causes to Effects, the demonstration is called a priori;
when from Effects to Causes, the demonstration is called a posteriori' (Arnauld, 1662, p. 301).

Kant further dealt with a priori in terms of 'pure' or 'mixed'.

Note the definition for postulates;

Definitions state the characteristics peculiar to particular sciences; while
Postulates are statements of fact 'on the being of which depends the being of the fact inferred' (1941, 76b, 39).

So generally, a priori is without direct experience and a posteriori is based on direct experiences.

Philosophers define their own terms usually as it is appropriate to be sure the listener understands their perspective. But whether their own definitions align with the general consensus of philosophers is up to question. Charitably, I interpret Kant as arguing for one to judge reality from the subjective perspective of their senses (like science does now) but without concern to consensus. In this way, I agree. This is an issue that I have a hard time expressing among others who do not recognize that science (the institute) is based upon "sense" and has to respect the subjective perspective when attempting to promote science to those not formally educated.

Science presented as objective scientifically is ultimately intersubjective. For Popper all scientific truths are merely polished conjectures by subjects collectively in consensus.

Kant view of Science is that it based on sense and rationality combined but ultimately must subsequently be justified with empirical evidences to confirm whatever is claimed as true.

I take issue with most science forums because they oddly do not recognize that if they are to sincerely respect the ideals of science, they have to begin by respecting the subjective viewpoints of those they are appealing to rather than the arrogant expectation that people learn to embrace 'authorities' of the scientific instutions. Why should a skeptic of the institution of science first require believing in them in order to learn why one should believe in 'science'? It is hypocritically at odds to the logical ideals of science that one 'selling' science should demand many expectations of 'proof' that prerequires faith in anything one credits as 'authoritative' when this begs the question. In this way, ...and if this is what he actually argues for, I respect Kant's approach and would consider him rightfully a philosopher of science needing respectful notice.

To understand and accept scientific truths one must first understands its agreed implicit constitution, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] in consensus.

Whatever ideology individuals or groups of scientists or others may have, these ideologies, e.g. scientism, logical positivism, etc. have no significance to science-proper.

Kant as a philosopher of his time got into whatever subjects they can for the sake of knowledge.
Whatever scientific theories Kant speculated [armchair], Kant would have agreed they must comply with the requirements of the scientific FSK to be true i.e. posteriori empirical evidences but he was not interested in doing the empirical exercises.

Kant did more than just admire the heavens – he made several notable contributions to astronomy and cosmology before he descended the slippery slope into philosophy.
https://www.lindahall.org/immanuel-kant/

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

... and predicted the nebula hypothesis of the formation of the solar system. Proposed and predicted gas nebulae elsewhere in the universe and correctly prdicted the shape of the milky way. He also had several insights into geology.
Not bad for an armchair philosopher

Not only that,

Immanuel Kant is undisputedly one of the most important western philosophers. Even in his own era, he was recognised for his contribution to epistemology and moral philosophy, but his contribution to political science and political theory is less well known.
https://socialsciences.ku.dk/news/kants ... al_theory/

Also,

The article examines the statements made by Immanuel Kant with reference to medicine as well as the impact of his philosophy on medicine. It describes the initial reaction of Kantian philosophy on medicine in the late 18th and early 19th century and its influence in the late 20th century.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 007-9085-z

There are countless of subjects that Kant ['Jack of all ' also 'master of many'] delved into.

My interest in Kant is only with his Philosophy which IMO as agreed with many is indispensable to any philosopher or anyone interested in philosophy.

[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?

Kant wrote before the Internet, so he did not leave links. You will have to read Hume and Kant to judge for yourself.

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.

Oh really?
Which problems do you mean?

Kant did answers on Hume's Problem of Causality and Induction in a very paradigmatic approach.

See this;

What Hume did not see, from Kant’s point of view,
is that the merely comparative universality of inductive generalization
can indeed be overcome
by transforming initially merely subjective “empirical rules” into truly objective and necessary “universal laws”
in accordance with synthetic but still a priori principles of the unity of nature-in-general.[Note 52]
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/

Note 52. Kant’s argument in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science provides a specific realization or instantiation of this idea in the case of Newton’s theory of universal gravitation: Newtonian mathematical demonstrations, in the context of the Newtonian mathematical theory of space, time, and motion, can indeed lead to a more than merely inductive status for an especially important empirical causal law.
Kant then supposes that the mathematical theory of space and time, as further determined via the Analogies of Experience, can (at least in principle) do something similar for lower-level empirical laws such as the sun warming the stone.
The question of the relationship between lower-level empirical laws and the “pure natural science” discussed in the Metaphysical Foundations is especially difficult, however, and it involves us, eventually, with the new questions about the relationship between empirical laws and the transcendental principles of the understanding raised in the Critique of Judgment: for further discussion see Friedman 1992a, 1992b, 2013.

You have to read the whole SEP article to get an idea what Kant's answers to Hume is about. Even if you do, I believe you would not be able to grasp the whole discussion on this issue.

[Sculptor]

You have to read the whole SEP article to get an idea what Kant's answers to Hume is about. Even if you do, I believe you would not be able to grasp the whole discussion on this issue.

You speak for yourself.
You have to do more than copy and paste.
Tell us in your own words how Kant improves upon Hume's account of causality!

[bahman]

You have to read the whole SEP article to get an idea what Kant's answers to Hume is about. Even if you do, I believe you would not be able to grasp the whole discussion on this issue.

You speak for yourself.
You have to do more than copy and paste.
Tell us in your own words how Kant improves upon Hume's account of causality!

Could you please tell us? I am dying to know and I am too lazy to read all their works.

[Sculptor]

You have to read the whole SEP article to get an idea what Kant's answers to Hume is about. Even if you do, I believe you would not be able to grasp the whole discussion on this issue.

You speak for yourself.
You have to do more than copy and paste.
Tell us in your own words how Kant improves upon Hume's account of causality!

Could you please tell us? I am dying to know and I am too lazy to read all their works.

Let's get this straight. You want me to sum up the lifes' work of Hume and Kant in a PN Forum post because you are too lazy?

er....


let me think...





NO

[bahman]

You speak for yourself.
You have to do more than copy and paste.
Tell us in your own words how Kant improves upon Hume's account of causality!

Could you please tell us? I am dying to know and I am too lazy to read all their works.

Let's get this straight. You want me to sum up the lifes' work of Hume and Kant in a PN Forum post because you are too lazy?

er....


let me think...





NO

You asked VA to do the same thing.

[Sculptor]

Could you please tell us? I am dying to know and I am too lazy to read all their works.

Let's get this straight. You want me to sum up the lifes' work of Hume and Kant in a PN Forum post because you are too lazy?

er....


let me think...





NO

You asked VA to do the same thing.

So you asked two people to do the impossible.
If there was something more specific though...

[bahman]

Let's get this straight. You want me to sum up the lifes' work of Hume and Kant in a PN Forum post because you are too lazy?

er....


let me think...





NO

You asked VA to do the same thing.

So you asked two people to do the impossible.
If there was something more specific though...

Hume believed that cause and effect cannot be reasoned. Did Kand find an answer for that?

[Sculptor]

You asked VA to do the same thing.

So you asked two people to do the impossible.
If there was something more specific though...

Hume believed that cause and effect cannot be reasoned. Did Kand find an answer for that?

That is his problem of induction, which is only a problem if you are ignorant of constant conjunction. We can only assume causality, but on the balance of probabilities we can predict the future outcome of known events. Hume was not the skeptic that Kant accused him of being, and was happy to confirm his position on determinism and compatibilism.
It was on this very matter that Kant said he was "interrupted from my dogmatic slumber", yet Kant's solution was to most clearly define metaphysical elements of nature to find direct and indubitable links of causality between elements. A thing which Hume already knew. For my money Hume's objection should always be present in the mind as this presents a sort of scientific humility which Kant lacked.
QM phenomena supports a Humean skepticism leaving Kant in the dark about what the hell is that all about.

Kant's main thrust is the idea that we can know more than what can be induced by experience, as thought be Locke's tabula rasa, and Hume's insistence that experience is the source of all knoweldge. Kant' "I then proceeded to the deduction of these concepts, on the basis of which I was now assured that they are not derived from experience, as Hume had feared, but have sprung from the pure understanding." This pure understanding is Descartes regurgitated. Kant is saying that we are born with knowledge about the world and it is from that that our experience may be used to guide us to science.
My worry with this is that since our inherent knowledge "pure understanding" is only ultimately derived from our evolved experience we have no special warrent to know reality outside of the narrow confines of the human metric.
Kant knows too well from this that the reality beyind human experience is a constant problem fro his ideas and talks much about never knowing the "things-in -themsleves" being never truly knowable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you asked two people to do the impossible.
If there was something more specific though...

Hume believed that cause and effect cannot be reasoned. Did Kand find an answer for that?

That is his problem of induction, which is only a problem if you are ignorant of constant conjunction. We can only assume causality, but on the balance of probabilities we can predict the future outcome of known events. Hume was not the skeptic that Kant accused him of being, and was happy to confirm his position on determinism and compatibilism.
It was on this very matter that Kant said he was "interrupted from my dogmatic slumber", yet Kant's solution was to most clearly define metaphysical elements of nature to find direct and indubitable links of causality between elements. A thing which Hume already knew. For my money Hume's objection should always be present in the mind as this presents a sort of scientific humility which Kant lacked.
QM phenomena supports a Humean skepticism leaving Kant in the dark about what the hell is that all about.

Kant's main thrust is the idea that we can know more than what can be induced by experience, as thought be Locke's tabula rasa, and Hume's insistence that experience is the source of all knoweldge.

Kant' "I then proceeded to the deduction of these concepts, on the basis of which I was now assured that they are not derived from experience, as Hume had feared, but have sprung from the pure understanding."

This pure understanding is Descartes regurgitated.

Kant is saying that we are born with knowledge about the world and it is from that that our experience may be used to guide us to science.

My worry with this is that since our inherent knowledge "pure understanding" is only ultimately derived from our evolved experience we have no special warrent to know reality outside of the narrow confines of the human metric.

Kant knows too well from this that the reality beyind human experience is a constant problem fro his ideas and talks much about never knowing the "things-in -themsleves" being never truly knowable.

Noted your points above and I disagree with some of them. Noted you are not very familiar with Kant's philosophy and some of the nuance points of Hume.

First of all, given his time, Hume did admit there a lot of things re 'human nature' [& human mind] he did not know that is beyond what he had presented in his Treatise and Enquiry.
I don't have the reference on hand, I will search for it later.

Based on what and how Hume set up his Treatise and Enquiry, it is logical one cannot derived the Law of Causality and secured Induction from experience alone. That is merely based on Constant Conjunction, habits and customs not a matter of fact.
Hume's focus is on direct Experience [re senses] which enable strong impressions in contrast to common reasoning which is based on faint images and vague ideas i.e. memory or imagination of the strong impressions.

Kant agreed with the above based on what Hume's construction of his Framework and System of Knowledge.

However Kant presented a paradigmatic approach to Hume. [related to his Copernican Revolution]
Instead of Hume assertion of Laws of Causality is an inference from constant conjunction of direct-Experiences [strong impressions], Kant claimed, that direct-Experiences [strong impressions] itself is grounded upon the Law of Causality itself.

What Kant is asserting is, without the inherent PRIMAL Law of Causality [a concept of Pure Understanding] existing a priori, there would be no direct-Experiences generating strong impressions.
So Hume's direct experience is groundless without reference to the Primal Law of Causality.

It is true, from Hume's framework, the majority will infer the Law of Causality from constant conjunction, but that is a pseudo or post-hoc law of causality and not the Primal Law of Causality.

So Kant claimed Hume is ignorant of that PRIMAL inherent Law of Causality embedded the mind of ALL humans.
As you alluded, this Primal Law of Causality is adapted from evolution since 4 billion years ago since the first one-celled entities emerged.

Kant identify this Primal Law of Causality as the Concept of Cause i.e. as a Category of Pure Understanding which he justified its Universality & Necessity via The Deductions.
It is this Universality and Necessity that justify how Induction works and is valid.
Real scientists don't have to give a damn with the Problem of Induction, but is it this justified Universality and Necessity that ground all Scientific works that facilitate consensus within the majority.

QM as a scientific theory does conform to Hume's superficial ideas but is more aligned with Kant's deeper justified concepts and human nature.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Given his time, Hume had the humility to admit he was ignorance of the hidden potentials and powers of the human mind.
It is the advantage of time that Kant [1724-1804] [later] awoken from dogmatic slumber by Hume [1711-1176] to strive to find answers to the questions raised by Hume. Kant did indeed succeed in answering Hume on the question of causality, induction and morality.

Hume did admit his ignorance more directly, but I don't have the reference on hand yet.

However here is clue where Hume [limited to his time then] admitted his ignorance on the nature of the human mind.

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
SECTION I. OF THE DIFFERENT SPECIES OF PHILOSOPHY.
Part 8
It cannot be doubted, that the Mind is endowed with several powers and faculties, that these powers are distinct from each other, that what is really distinct to the immediate Perception may be distinguished by reflexion; and consequently, that there is a truth and falsehood in all propositions on this subject, and a truth and falsehood, which lie not beyond the compass of human understanding.
There are many obvious distinctions of this kind, such as those between the will and understanding, the imagination and passions, which fall within the comprehension of every human creature; and the finer and more philosophical distinctions are no less real and certain, though more difficult to be comprehended.
Some instances, especially late ones, of success in these enquiries, may give us a juster notion of the certainty and solidity of this branch of learning.
And shall we esteem it worthy the labour of a philosopher to give us a true system of the planets, and adjust the position and order of those remote bodies; while we affect to overlook those, who, with so much success, delineate the parts of the Mind, in which we are so intimately concerned?

Part 9.
But may we not hope, that philosophy, if cultivated with care, and encouraged by the attention of the public, may carry its researches still farther, and discover, at least in some degree, the secret springs and principles, by which the human Mind is actuated in its operations?

Astronomers had long contented themselves with proving, from the phenomena, the true motions, order, and magnitude of the heavenly bodies: Till a philosopher, at last, arose, who seems, from the happiest reasoning, to have also determined the laws and forces, by which the revolutions of the planets are governed and directed.
The like has been performed with regard to other parts of nature.

And there is no reason to despair of equal success in our enquiries concerning the mental powers and economy, if prosecuted with equal capacity and caution.

It is probable, that one operation and principle of the Mind depends on another; which, again, may be resolved into one more general and universal: And how far these researches may possibly be carried, it will be difficult for us, before, or even after, a careful trial, exactly to determine.
This is certain, that attempts of this kind are every day made even by those who philosophize the most negligently:
And nothing can be more requisite than to enter upon the enterprise with thorough care and attention; that, if it lie within the compass of human understanding, it may at last be happily achieved; if not, it may, however, be rejected with some confidence and security.
This last conclusion, surely, is not desirable; nor ought it to be embraced too rashly.
For how much must we diminish from the beauty and value of this species of philosophy, upon such a supposition?
Moralists have hitherto been accustomed, when they considered the vast multitude and diversity of those actions that excite our approbation or dislike, to search for some common principle, on which this variety of sentiments might depend.
And though they have sometimes carried the matter too far, by their passion for some one general principle; it must, however, be confessed, that they are excusable in expecting to find some general principles, into which all the vices and virtues were justly to be resolved.
The like has been the endeavour of critics, logicians, and even politicians: Nor have their attempts been wholly unsuccessful; though perhaps longer time, greater accuracy, and more ardent application may bring these sciences still nearer their perfection.