Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:59 pm
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?