>>24723766
>anglos
If you want a straightforward takedown of dogmatic Kantianism the intro to Schelling’s Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature hits all the main points and is accessible. There are many problems
If sensibility and understanding are separate, how can we guarantee experience? Why couldn’t intuition simply refuse to comply with the understanding?
How can a thing in itself be known to exist?
Why the hell *should* the categories follow from laws of syllogistic logic?
How does Kant know all this? What’s his method? Oh wait he doesn’t have one.
Aren’t all concepts both analytic and synthetic?
How is Kant not begging the question against skepticism?
How can this noumenal will interact with phenomena?
Trying to answer questions like that while preserving the “spirit” of Kant is what post-Kantian idealism is all about. It’s like hundreds of years of philosophical history compressed into 30 years.
