Well, i am forced by various powers of the universe to continue presenting things from one of the most boringly written philosophical works of all time, namely Kant's 'critique of pure reason' 
Part of a brief presentation of enlightenment era philosophy (and that bordering the era).
So the thread can include my synopsis of this work, although i do not profess to be more aware of Kantianism than people who read more of his works. However, some things do immediately stand out, if one has read some philosophy, and particularly for myself what does stand out (negatively) in Kant is his very deductive way of thinking when he examines dialectic stuff.
Ok, the above was not english, so what i mean by that is that Kant was of the view one can isolate knowledge in particular fields, without that being to the detriment of said fields or of our notion of knowledge. Eg he is fine with claiming we have a knowledge of 5+7=12 (not a chance example, he uses this in his treatise), or that we have a knowledge that stuff in the external world have weight (again, not a chance example), but doesn't seem to care about not being able (again in text) to provide a definition of truth regardless of truth being tied to a set object of examination. Eg (again in english) Kant argues that while you can know a truth tied to something specific and in that context (for example that an object in the external world has weight), you cannot know what truth is isolated from any object of examination.
This isn't an argument he happens to make; it is very crucial in his overall philosophy. The idea itself that truth is only specific in context, is obviously not new. Yet Kant goes on to claim that any search of 'truth' as a notion itself, is futile. That is sort of new, but more importantly it is (imo) poor philosophy, given 'truth' is again a notion in our intellect, thus it is merely of a different type than what is sensed of it when tied in specific context. Kant, to be brief, argues in favour of an axiomatic system of logic (again not new, and very Aristotelian), yet (iirc in these exact words) considers dialectic to be an illusion and a mocking of logic. What follows is a definition of dialectic, since that is a term not very known to people outside philosophy
Dialectic is attributed to Zeno of Elea (by Aristotle) and generally is a system of thinking where no axiom is accepted. This means there is no stable basis. It is also why of the two methods of dialectic thinking (both attributed to Zeno) only one is part of math, namely the famous 'reductio ad absurdum', ie the method where one examines the consequences that a position theorised as true would have, and if those consequences are found to be false it follows that the position was also false.
The other method in dialectic is to examine the basis of the given position (it is somewhat the opposite, given the former was to examine the consequences/extensions of the position). Yet try to do this in math: "well, i was asked to show that the pythagorean theorem is true in eucledian geometry, but i will now place the axioms of that geometry into question"
Intelligent, yet the math test score won't be good for you 
Kant seems to be mostly based on Aristotle, which isn't much of a surprise, given he examines logic (set axiom-base thinking) and attacks dialectic thinking, like Aristotle first did. He also tries (like Aristotle) to deduce conclusions of the more general, from the more specific, and/or categorically claim that if that is not possible in cases then it follows we just cannot know then. A serious issue with this approach, though, is that it creates a neat model where the edges of our experience/consciousness are presented as very stable and basic and evidently true, while things get blurrier progressively the more theoretical you get. However it does not at all seem evident that this is a result of a reality, or merely a result of the way you set your system of thinking.
Post got too long, doubt it will be even read... You can discuss about Kant or any of the other issues presented. Not sure if there will be a fruitful discussion, but i thought of sharing..
Part of a brief presentation of enlightenment era philosophy (and that bordering the era).
So the thread can include my synopsis of this work, although i do not profess to be more aware of Kantianism than people who read more of his works. However, some things do immediately stand out, if one has read some philosophy, and particularly for myself what does stand out (negatively) in Kant is his very deductive way of thinking when he examines dialectic stuff.
Ok, the above was not english, so what i mean by that is that Kant was of the view one can isolate knowledge in particular fields, without that being to the detriment of said fields or of our notion of knowledge. Eg he is fine with claiming we have a knowledge of 5+7=12 (not a chance example, he uses this in his treatise), or that we have a knowledge that stuff in the external world have weight (again, not a chance example), but doesn't seem to care about not being able (again in text) to provide a definition of truth regardless of truth being tied to a set object of examination. Eg (again in english) Kant argues that while you can know a truth tied to something specific and in that context (for example that an object in the external world has weight), you cannot know what truth is isolated from any object of examination.
This isn't an argument he happens to make; it is very crucial in his overall philosophy. The idea itself that truth is only specific in context, is obviously not new. Yet Kant goes on to claim that any search of 'truth' as a notion itself, is futile. That is sort of new, but more importantly it is (imo) poor philosophy, given 'truth' is again a notion in our intellect, thus it is merely of a different type than what is sensed of it when tied in specific context. Kant, to be brief, argues in favour of an axiomatic system of logic (again not new, and very Aristotelian), yet (iirc in these exact words) considers dialectic to be an illusion and a mocking of logic. What follows is a definition of dialectic, since that is a term not very known to people outside philosophy
Dialectic is attributed to Zeno of Elea (by Aristotle) and generally is a system of thinking where no axiom is accepted. This means there is no stable basis. It is also why of the two methods of dialectic thinking (both attributed to Zeno) only one is part of math, namely the famous 'reductio ad absurdum', ie the method where one examines the consequences that a position theorised as true would have, and if those consequences are found to be false it follows that the position was also false.
The other method in dialectic is to examine the basis of the given position (it is somewhat the opposite, given the former was to examine the consequences/extensions of the position). Yet try to do this in math: "well, i was asked to show that the pythagorean theorem is true in eucledian geometry, but i will now place the axioms of that geometry into question"
Intelligent, yet the math test score won't be good for you Kant seems to be mostly based on Aristotle, which isn't much of a surprise, given he examines logic (set axiom-base thinking) and attacks dialectic thinking, like Aristotle first did. He also tries (like Aristotle) to deduce conclusions of the more general, from the more specific, and/or categorically claim that if that is not possible in cases then it follows we just cannot know then. A serious issue with this approach, though, is that it creates a neat model where the edges of our experience/consciousness are presented as very stable and basic and evidently true, while things get blurrier progressively the more theoretical you get. However it does not at all seem evident that this is a result of a reality, or merely a result of the way you set your system of thinking.
Post got too long, doubt it will be even read... You can discuss about Kant or any of the other issues presented. Not sure if there will be a fruitful discussion, but i thought of sharing..
Where would we be without... errr... wait...
(eg Camus famously described Heidegger's two volumes as 'written in the most boring way of all time' 
