it's true that Kant never had any interest in speaking against the underpinnings of ascetic reasoning like Nierzsche did, but the main takeaway i'm getting fron transcendental idealism is that Kant did believe he had the human imagination partially mapped...

That is a good observation. Kant had figured that he had nailed down the uses of psychology but the time since then has proven otherwise.

There's a further complication here because by the time Kant was using the word "metaphysics", it was already modified quite apart from Aristotle's intended discussion under the book by that name (The Metaphysics).

Aristotle was concerned with the ground of being, in modern parlance, the nature of the world. By the time Descartes uses the term, he uses metaphysics to cover a lot of the questions we would label as "epistemology", concerning the way we interpret the world.

Back then "epistemology" was not used, as this term was coined in mass contemporary usage by the late 19th century.

So Kant in talking about metaphysics discusses issues that are "metaphysical" in the ancient sense but also "epistemological" in our sense.

But I don't think Aristotle would've agreed with how the term was latter used. Not that he used the word. But the book is about the world and its nature.

I think these aspects complicate the situation.

So Kant in talking about metaphysics discusses issues that are "metaphysical" in the ancient sense but also "epistemological" in our sense. — Manuel

Good to know. :up:

But I don't think Aristotle would've agreed with how the term was latter used. Not that he used the word. But the book is about the world and its nature. — Manuel

It's my opinion that the term "metaphysical" has to relate to what he was getting at in his book though...but that's just me, it will be interesting to see what heideggar has to say about it.