TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:51 am
Relatively I would rate Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
In 2018?!? A priori knowledge is the most harmful idea in epistemology!
Also - the fact that you are rating a single perspective higher than a collection of perspectives sure seems like dogmatism.
If you give Kant 80/100 then I give Wikipedia 95/100. And I am willing to provide Wikipedia alternatives to any "valuable" ideas you think Kant came up with.
All of Kant's philosophy falls flat on its face the moment one asks these three questions:
* What is the ontology of 'pure reason'?
* Is there a 'pure' vs 'impure'' (right vs wrong!) way to reason?
* How does one recognise (know!) if they are reasoning more 'purely' or more 'impurely' as they acquire new experiences? e.g progress or regress?
It fails to address ontology, morality AND epistemology!
To Kant 'reason' is a Weasel Word! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
His philosophy fails in exactly the same way as all Foundationalism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism
) - Infinite regress ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress
What happens to your entire world-view if (when?) your fundamentals (a priori knowledge) get falsified?
As far as I am concerned there is no practical distinction between Foundationalism and Fundamentalism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
). Any perceived distinction is merely equivocation.
Btw have you read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason [CPR] and his other two 'Critiques'?
If yes, how many times have you read the CPR?
How many hours have you spent of reading Kant?
If you have not done the following set;
1- read the CPR at least 10 times from front to back at one go and done extensive research and analysis on it, and confident you have understood Kant thoroughly,
2 - spent at least 800 hours on a Kant project specifically,
I would prefer not to discuss Kant seriously and in detail with you.
The above is the minimal [my view],
I have gone through the above set many times, i.e. >7500 hours.
Note, Kant's a priori
was not carved in stone, but rather his concept of a priori
was pointing to a light at the end of his 1800 tunnel with loads of provision to the future from his then limited available empirical knowledge.