Immanuel Kant

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
I thought that can of worms was opened by the British empiricists, Locke, Hume et al.....

​

Didn`t Kant attempt to "unify" (spot the physicist we`re obsessed with unified theories) British empiricism and Continental rationalism (Descartes and Co.) forming German Idealism?

---

I'd put it more like "Kant attempted to salvage rationalism after Hume used empiricism to make a big mess of logic, and math, and causality, and pretty much anything else he could think of." Rationalism meaning "the philosophical outlook or program which stresses the power of [i]a priori[/] reasoning to grasp substantial truths about the world and correspondingly tends to reguard natural sciences as a basically [i]a priori[/] enterprise." (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, under rationalism)Kant thought you could think your way to an understanding of the world. But unlike modern rationalism, evidence and experiment didn't really come into play. Kant's rationalism was all logic, all brain.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
I know I am not Kant and Richard Boyd Labeled me an idealist before his wife who only heard of me second hand or by mouth sealed me diagnosed yet these are only in DSM if going to Doctor without illness IS AN ILLNESS in my case neither are true, I revert to parent form, agree with Wallce and read a book canvassed from Aurburn NY same two years Darwin got this feeling. Slime has none but Kant did. Dont think this. I mean I didnt think so, John.

---

WOW, Brad. That reads just like Prolegomena!!!!!------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Thanks for the timely reply J, I was very very, did I say "very" impressed with Kant's PRO-book because it made some Russian work on Galaxy forms look childish by comparison. Kant had reached in the competition on the spin among the planents to VISUALIZE the thinkness of, his term, "systematic constitution" BEFORE the telescope did the same that was the instrumental basis of the book on spiral galaxies etc. And after I read Hume and found him, on my own unconvincing, I was totally into Kant's mule but I have not yet been able to update Kant into the categories that things as extreme as Wolfram's digital philosophy suspects while it is possible even any a priori ness of Mendel non-contiuna 3/1 may be (if topology is added to statistical protocol split of genotype and phenotype)not analog BUT WITH KANTS MEASURE (see failure of math to follow out the collection in Lebesque) but I doubt it. I am still much too weded not to Babbage-IBM but to the e-fish waveform and having to right down an equation from the oscilloscope. In this way I am like Gould with a electric typewriter and not the C# platform of bioinformatics. Again, happy too see you send this back so quickly.

---

Though I make fun of him for what he did with his metaphysics, I like Kant. For myself, it is the fact that his core idea that we interpret data before becoming aware of it foreshadowed the conclusions implied in the field of neurology, for example. Really quite a brilliant insight.Hume's Treatise I think was a necessary jab at empiricism, but he undercut himself as well as everyone else.You'll have to give me time to catch up on Wolfram but from what I've read so far, sounds like Gottfried Liebniz, another favorite of mine.Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
That would be a known historical approach to the subject but I would try to go out space with what Wolfram would be if he was an AMERICAN PASCAL? What do you think philosophicall? Take all the time in the world Plato or otherwise

---

Definitely otherwise, not Plato. The Forms too easily resolve to an exact mirror of the observable world, so why bother?I suppose I am more empiricist than anything as it seems to require the fewest number of assumptions.As for your first question, I don't know what you're asking.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com