Did Kant sufficiently refute metaphysics and rationalism

>>24527602 (OP)
>our criticism is the necessary preparation for a thoroughly scientific system of metaphysics, which must perform its task entirely a priori, to the complete satisfaction of speculative reason, and must, therefore, be treated, not popularly, but scholastically. In carrying out the plan which the Critique prescribes, that is, in the future system of metaphysics, we must have recourse to the strict method of the celebrated Wolf, the greatest of all dogmatic philosophers.
He didn't kill metaphysics, he made it scientific.

>>24527602 (OP)
Oof you just worked your way into a 3rd cave.

>>24527602 (OP)
How bout you decide that for yourself big boy? What's the matter? Can't figure it out? Gonna cry? Piss your pants?

Not yet, Kant showed that speculative metaphysics (the attempt to gain knowledge of God, soul, and the world-in-itself through pure reason) is impossible. Reason is limited to the realm of possible experience

Some philosophical and mystical traditions, not strictly rationalist in the Western sense, might argue that there are modes of knowing beyond discursive reason and sensory experience (e.g., intuition, direct experience, revelation) that can indeed access ultimate reality, thereby challenging Kant's epistemological limits. While not a direct "rationalist" rebuttal, it offers an alternative path to the kind of "knowledge" that traditional rationalists sought.

>>24527602 (OP)
i'm still gonna have a chat with the little girl regardless of what you think.
anyway Kant does not refute empirical idealism, he in fact embraces it

SoRrY
i obviously meant the dogmatic and skeptical idealists on the subject on matter

>>24527602 (OP)
there's a dude named Wittgenstein
who needs this faggot ass shit with long books when we have real german clarity

>>24527773
Kant is responding to his own immediate tradition in its terms. I don't think the critical turn actually ends up "refuting" or undermining older traditions in the way it is often taken too (e.g. any with notions of noesis/intellectus). Thomism, for instance, isn't dealt much of a blow, and one might say the same of Aristotle and many of his commentators, not to mention the Augustinian tradition. Kant's critique ultimately fails to land much outside the Enlightenment because it is stuck with its presuppositions.

Burgess book is ok on this because it is broad, but there are much more in depth rebuttals for specific traditions, particularly Thomism since it still claims a lot of adherents. His original dissertation which became the book is free: https://theses.gla.ac.uk/2741/

Ultimately, I don't blame Kant. He was not an expert on ancient or medieval thought, and was seemingly ignorant of the via antiqua and the doctrina signorum (which C.S. Peirce uses to resurrect realism). I blame the generations of incautious philosophers who treated Kant as presuppositionless and assumed his criticism fit more broadly without checking.

The same sort of thing seems to have happened with Wittgenstein, and to a lesser extent Quine. Their arguments from underdetermination were not unknown to the ancients and medievals. They are only seen as absolute today because of certain assumptions deeply engrained in empiricist epistemology, but these are questionable when actually examined, especially when they lead to these radical conclusions (conclusions of the sort that one might figure disqualify an epistemology DESU).

>>24527848
>Ultimately, I don't blame Kant. He was not an expert on ancient or medieval thought, and was seemingly ignorant of the via antiqua and the doctrina signorum (which C.S. Peirce uses to resurrect realism). I blame the generations of incautious philosophers who treated Kant as presuppositionless and assumed his criticism fit more broadly without checking.
Good take

>>24527602 (OP)
>refute rationalism
that's easy to demonstrate because rational psychology gives rise to paralogism while rational cosmology gives rise to antinomy

>>24527848
Thinking the medievals were simplistic is probably the most ubiquitous failing in philosophy. In reality, philosophy wasn't as professionalized and developed again until the mid-20th century, if then. So the idea that all of it can be dispatched in short arguments is a sort of extreme hubris, one oft repeated by the "post-moderns."

in fact I would even wager Kant goes on to show that anything not containing the I think formula is effectively substantive?

>>24527881
>thinking German idealism doesn't outright refute naive Cartesian rationalism
what is bro on about?

>>24527602 (OP)
Kant did not refute metaphysics... he refuted old school metaphysics and founded next level metaphysics... and he did refute rationalism AND empiricism in so far as both are not able to know the thing in itself... but at the same time he was both... a rationalist for his whole system of synthetic judgements a priori and an empiricist for pointing out that we can not make any progress without experience...

>>24527848
>Their arguments from underdetermination were not unknown to the ancients and medievals.
ok, they knew them but failed to recognize their importance or to build a system around them.
you can't just say: "oh, they knew about it, so everything that is said about it is refuted"

you really think Kant needs to say something about the ancient practice of divination by looking at the intestines of sacrificed animals?