Are you suggesting that 'Kant's philosophy' is "scientific"? Which do you mean – pre-modern theoria or modern hypothetico-deduction? "Scientific" in a historical, natural or formal sense? I ask because I am not aware of any precise, unique predictions (via repeatable objective experiments) 'Kant's philosophy' entails. :chin:Two "ways" which philosophers do philosophy can be broadly construed as scientific or literary. — Moliere
I think skeptic is a good epithet; with respect to scientific knowledge and such I think he really is a skeptic. But, one, I don't see that as a bad thing. And two, I think his skepticism is confined to a tradition. I don't think he's a universal skeptic. — Moliere
Skeptics posit a totality which cannot be had — Jackson
I think he's trying to actually move outside of Kant's categories, but knows that in so speaking he would already set up an opposition which would create a Hegelian sort of dialectic... — Moliere
. Do you think that's unfair? — Moliere
I agree that Hegel is a concrete thinker, tho -- just fy — Moliere
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.