So is Kant actually more of an empiricist than a rationalist ?I mean there is no progress without experience...and every rational aspect of his, namely the categories, they all come to work just to built experience not outside or besides of experience...everything needs "Anschauung" to actually work... and we have no intellectual "Anschauung" as a rationalist like plato believed...a true rationalist would never come up with a "thing in itself" that is not recognizable to us...I think Kant wanted to combine both but if you had to choose one you would have to call him an empiricist rather than a rationalist...I think we need to find a way to strengthen rationalism again... as I doubt with empiricism we will ever achieve what metaphysics actually wants to know...
>>25244889>I think Kant wanted to combine both but if you had to choose one you would have to call him an empiricist rather than a rationalist...This is why we have idealism, OP.
>>25244907true... true...
>"... and this court is none other than the Critique of Pure Reason (1787 2nd Edition, translated by Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press) itself."Fucking seriously, Kant? Put the book down right there.
>>25246234why?
