Interesting. However consensual criteria suffers from lack generated by degrees of opinion. An all inclusice set of everyone, re. the criteria You havw set up , including professional philosophers and the general public at large would be an exhaustiove and completely sufficient evaluation. However, even within the philosophical commiunity, there has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever been a study like that concluded. Therefore Your criteria is only a workable framework within which a possible study could be consteucted. That it has not, degeades the opinion that Kant Is the greatest philosopher. It is only a hypothetical based on preference. That charge may be softened by Your refutation, that it meets the above listed references’ criteria. But, those, even if meeting the challenge of ascertaining objectivity, can and would be countered by non-Kantians, whose application to criteria would differ. I see no wauy to get ot of this loop, and although Your observation that Kant’s approach to metaphysical truth is intuitive, they may say that Your seconding that motion intuitively. Kant actually sewed up metaphysics, and thempivotal questionnism theobjetive versus the objectivity in a synthetic a priori proposition. That Kantians defend it, is no surprise, but again it is by begging the question of ontological certainty. That Nietzche rebelled agsinst ultra rationalism of Hegel, who inherited the attempt by Kant, to rescue the rational defense of Geman idealism. Nietzche saw through this, and rebelled against it. Nietzche did not follow prescedence, butm broke away from it. Some wish He had not done so, and saw no reason to categoriclly defend the this process of ressoning. With Nietzche, there came an end to an era, sadly, and some blame him for this, not realizig that it is the era which called upon an equally intuitive thinker, to show the cracks in status quo. So, objectivity build on a consensus of an structural edifice, may or may not stand the test of time. That he did not, is without question, this is where we are in the future post modern world, the tide couldnnot be stopped.
But before You may think I am jumping the gun, i have to conceede, that Kant was a more exact thinker, not as much prone to aphorisms, however, modernity has demolished his ideas, as do sand castles in the coming tide. It is what it is, generations of existenz philosophy idemnify this fact.
That other minds, such as Marx, tried to re-apply synthesis in a different garb, shows how very serious but flawed minds can cause the social catastrophes inherent in non workable arguments. In cases like that, it is not the ideas, but the efficacy of the rhetoric which wins the hears and minds of men.
The ligteral visage of dialectical materialism born out of the hear of fascist darkness, sandwitched between the work kultur ethic of the Western powers, and the forces of a seeming humanistic-socialistic paradigmn,
examplifies in polarity between these three systems, not a synthetis of them. Tjere is no synthesis in the western world, only incorporation of all opposing ideas, thereby overpowering them by the use of utlitarian principles, which have won out. Historical facts, rather then ideas, have come to rule. Nietzchean Nihilism is the only workable tableau for disenchanted utalitarians. There is no exit, only intepretation of signs and signals, a guessing game, where even the individual signals may in them self be open to interpretation by the very ones sending outthe signals. The result is beyond meaning, into the realm of total effect/affect, and the most convincing wins the day hands down. The medium is the message.
Here, Scopehauerian pessimism is echoed, and a recycling of this type of mind set, into the vogue
and surprising twists and turns of the only saving grace, the genius of invention and remodeling the human psyche. Sorry to those whom i may have offended, especially those to whom Ayn Rand has no appeal whatsoever, but, existenz is primary as a way of being in the world, and it was Kant, after all, who finally sewed up metaphysics. He has to be commended monumentally for his great effort, which semd as if it had stood on three legs for a while, but what happened in reality, was not an objective consensus of his ideas’ stability of a lasting perscriptio fo the world.