Has the transcendental aesthetic even been refuted? It seems like contemporary anglos just pretend it doesn't exist.
>>23627694I am not aware of any refutation in the entirety. Criticisms and disagreements are plentiful and the directions the successors to Kant went in can vary but otherwise to your point if one is not interested in Kant then one is not likely to read him. Given the sheer number of responses to Kant that have ensued anyone reading philosophy post-Kant will likely consume more responses to Kant than actual material from Kant.
>>23627747>anyone reading philosophy post-Kant will likely consume more responses to Kant than actual material from Kant.That's unfortunate.
>>23627694>speculates
>Kunt thread
>>23627694Its self contradictory only pseuds purchase the ideology. But the language is useful if you enjoy mindfucking the vulnerable and illiterate
