i am not sure what you mean by 'looking up to kant'ForgedinHell wrote:However, that was a fair, and reasoned response, because your point was that philosophy does not look up to Kant, and the fact an entire issue was dedicated to him is proof otherwise.
i gave you a statement from someone who is generally regarded as a foremost authority on kant - and the statement is not exactly complimentary
i did not read the kant issue so i cannot comment on it specifically
however any book on kant will point out multiple ways in which his arguments are questionable, wrong or even incoherent
the prevailing view is that he made major contributions to the field, brought up interesting points, was influential, not that he was right about everything - about some things he appears to be completely wrong and hardly anyone will deny that
i think you are confusing modern perception of kant with medieval scholastics' view of Aristotle
the prevailing view is that whoever makes a positive assertion has to prove itWhy? The statement is accurate, and you can check for yourself. If you find that I am in error, then show me your references.
still your views are over the top in a randial styleMy opinions are quite different from Rand's. Not even closely related. Rand, for example, considered Kant to be the most evil person who ever lived. He hardly deserves that title.
i am not sure what substantial differences between your worldview and rands are