I've been reading Kant for what seems like an eternity. I've had my 'a-ha' moments but there are some skeptical arguments that give me pause. But I believe there are a lot of great minds out there who have the skills to get at the truth. I'm still wrestling with Dr. Godden thesis trying to comprehend how the strengths and weaknesses of different types of arguments are evaluated. The weakness claimed by Strawson and the more radical 'common sense' realist's against 'the transcendental argument' make it sound like Kant broke some kind of cardinal rule, yet they don't hesitate to use (scavenge) whatever they can to strengthen a position I believe is the weaker one. I try to stay objective and it's not as hard with Strawson as with others. Nevertheless I cannot buy into that world view.
I did have a question about a conflict that raged a number of years ago and has resurfaced, (at least in my small world) and I wondered if anyone had current experience regarding the veracity of the argument. While reading 'The Bounds of Sense' Strawson (not tacitly) accused Kant of 'psychologism', so I obtained a PhD theses written by David M. Godden -McMaster U - in which he defends 'logic' against the same psychologism accusations Strawson directed against Kant. I am not a philosopher but it seems that the only way to argue this is pyrrhic and maybe this war best be left for empirical science to weigh in. One accusation against Kant was that he applied a 'unique' method of logic in support of his Critique referring to it as 'purely' Kantian implying some sort of indefensible tactic or disingenuous use of logic. So, it again appears to this layman that 'logic' is vital to Kants position and the strengthening arguments for psychologism from the science community -cog. science-AI - makes me wonder if the transcendental argument will be able to refute the 'realists AND the scientists. Dr. M. Godden develops strong arguments in support of (content-less nature) logic and defending logic against the challenge of psychologism,.

Best Kant scholar/commentator?

Post has attachment
Final part of my discussions with Allen W. Wood - this is worth checking out just for the idea that whoever is elected president of the US is effectively being elected as Darth Vader!

Post has attachment
The second part of my discussion with Allen W. Wood, here challenging my idea of 'intolerant tolerance'.

Post has attachment
The first of a three part discussion with Allen W. Wood, in which he argues with some of my ideas in Chaos Ethics.

Post has attachment

hello ! everybody. I am a learner of philosophy . I want to understand kant ,because i think his theory is crucial for me and my country. Is there anyone can help me or discuss with me? I will appreciate it .

by studying Harvard's open course "justice ", i have learnt  a little about "critique of practical reason ",and been fascinated with it .

My first puzzle is how could "pure reason" be possible ? What 's kinds of moral law will be chosen by the "pure reason" ? Thus ,need i work through the "critique of pure reason " first ? I want to know how useful it is ? Have we taken it for granted now ?

I have basic knowledge of philosophy, i have read " a history of Chinese philosophy " by fengyoulan and "a history of western philosophy by Bertrand Russell

Post has attachment

Someone wants to discuss about the Critique of Judgement? I am reading this text for my thesis.

Can someone point me to a Definition of Society by Kant? 
or at least something like a good discussion of the term by him? 

I am still new to Kantiansm so i need a lot of help. Thank you. 
Wait while more posts are being loaded