I must disagree with Kant here. I think a philosiphical work can and should account for everything that it claims. That in fact philosophy can and therefore ultimately must be more exact than mathematics. This is because mathematics postulates the integer, whereas philosophy must derive it, arrive at it. That’s at least what my work has been about.
Ultimately the integer is given, and it is therefore not dangerous or dishonest to postulate it, but to speak of it one must arrive at it from within itself, one must uncover what makes it an integer, even though it is irreducible.
That is the ground of an understanding of how integers can come to interact without damaging each others integrity.
Kant did attend to the practices of the empirical world [he called it anthropology then - not the same as its current use ], but his work on this aspect was not significant.
There is a very strong correlation between Buddhism and Kantian philosophy in essence however Buddhism is not as systematic in its presentation. The additional feature that Buddhism over the theoretical Kantian system is its personal self-development program of the individual to align optimally with the natural moral impulse towards the ideal. This involve actual rewiring of the neural circuitry in the brain.
Thus in my case, whatever is omitted from the Kantian system is supplemented by the affective system from Buddhism.
I too have been trained rigorously in Buddhism as well as in Yogic and Vedic philosophies, which indeed include or even start with physical practices. Yes, the brain does need to be rewired (though some form of meditational disclipline, not necessarily eastern) for it to grasp the inner workings of being.