I understand Kant very well, yes he was an important philosopher, but a philosopher and not a scientist. He died over 200 years ago, we have come along way since, and I go with more contemporary science and philosophy. Kant's view of science is old and not practical. Kant's philosophy could not design airplanes nor computers.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/...ntifies pure,requires a metaphysics of nature.
"Kant's very conception of natural science proper thus immediately gives rise to several systematically important questions. First, if the “transcendental part” of the metaphysics of nature can be identified with the results of the Critique of Pure Reason, then the Metaphysical Foundations is a work in special metaphysics. But what exactly is a special metaphysics? In particular, what particular natures or kinds of things could be its object? And how precisely can an empirical concept of such things be given without compromising the necessity required of the pure part of natural science? Second, how is the special metaphysics provided by the Metaphysical Foundations supposed to be related to the transcendental part of the metaphysics of nature that was established in the Critique of Pure Reason? Does the former presuppose the principles of the latter or are they logically independent, but still related to each other in some other way? Another question concerns the method of special metaphysics. Is that method the conceptual analysis (of the notion of matter), the transcendental investigation of the presuppositions of the mathematical science of nature, or something else entirely?"
Last edited:
