In the preface to the first edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant writes:
I am not sure if any one agrees, but I often find Kant to be undeniably arrogant in what he says. This is not the only example we find, Kant also states that:
To take the first statement, it seems to be all or nothing with Kant, for if he appears not to have completely solved any metaphysical problem, the whole argument falls down.
As for the second, its a fairly big goal to find the “supreme principle of morality.”
Ok, maybe unneccesarily was the wrong word, but is Kant boasting, or does he get it right. I’m just intrigued because i’ve only read the start of the Groundwork and some of the Critique of Pure Reason.
well lots of kantian scholars do think he gets it right… they can not abide the fact that hume may have been correct (and yes, I vote for hume)…
kant isn’t boasting persay, he believes that he is correct and it ain’t boasting if you can do it…
at least kant believes he can do it… but you have to make your own conclusions… his arguments have some merit… others fall apart by means of a faculty… but you’ll get there too…
well lots of kantian scholars do think he gets it right… they can not abide the fact that hume may have been correct (and yes, I vote for hume)…
Wow! “and yes, I vote for hume”? What happened to your neutron-bomb-like Kant-blasting ways? Damn this is about as mild an endorsement from Hume’s most loyal follower that can ever be imagined. Perhaps Hume’s days really are numbered.
What happened to the Jihad against cause and effect? The searing attacks on Induction? The slash and burn against the synthetic apriori?
