Ierrellus

Because of what Newton had discovered, Kant had to admit that there was some way of interpreting phenomena which would allow innate knowledge of what is extrinsic to the human body. Is philosophy, with its polarities and dichotomies, somehow missing the point of what direct observation, with mechanically extended senses,
can produce?

Ierrellus

owleye

Ierrelius...

Could you be a little more specific about what it was that Newton discovered that Kant somehow was reluctant to admit. My reading of Kant, even from his early writings, had him taking Newton's theories as a given and that philosophy's task was to determine how it was cognitively possible. Moreover, in no sense should we interpret Kant as spelling out innate cognitions. His task in this area was devoted to a transcendental philosophy, requiring a transcendental aesthetic and a transcendental logic.

However, if I understand your main point, I would agree that Kant essentially put an end to classical metaphysics and that most (professional) philosophers have been reluctant to engage that subject. Nevertheless we often see among those not particularly versed in Kant, a felt need to believe that true reality is hidden from us, putting a lie to what, for us, is empirically real.

owleye

Ierrellus

owleye,

Thank you for your excellent post. The thought about Newton and Kant was my attempt to remember a quote from E. O. Wilson's CONSILIENCE. Since my memory fails me to a great extent, and I did not write the quote down, I feel I need to dicontinue this thread. Again, your comments are always appreciated.

Ierrellus