You (and really, the whole of Lesswrong) should Popper’s paper “The Nature of Philosophical Problems and Their Roots in Science”. Here’s a pdf.
The section about Kant (towards the end) does an excellent job of explaining how he arrived at his (far too strong) system. In essence, Kant was faced with a paradox: On the one hand, Hume had proven that it’s impossible for us to attain certain knowledge about the natural world, and its spatiotemporal and causal structure. But on the other, Newton had apparently done just that! So Kant tries to resolve this by showing that concepts such as space, time and causation are preconditions for the possibility of being conscious at all. So ultimately Newton’s system is merely ‘unpacking’ what’s already implicit in the fact that we have minds, hence we can have certain knowledge of it after all.
Of course it’s confused and wrong. But in its time it was brilliant and original.
You (and really, the whole of Lesswrong) should Popper’s paper “The Nature of Philosophical Problems and Their Roots in Science”.
An excellent recommendation. Thank you.
Of course [Kant’s “Critique” is] confused and wrong. But in its time it was brilliant and original.
I won’t disagree that it was brilliant and original. My question was whether it was helpful. Or, if you prefer, whether it was fruitful.
I’m a big fan of David Hume. And I understand that Hume’s writing on “the problem of induction” was fruitful to the extent that it stimulated Kant’s work. My problem is that my distaste for Kant leads me to doubt that Hume’s work here was fruitful. Or at least I have to doubt that it has yet borne fruit yet (though Laplace, Jaynes, and Solomonoff have certainly tried heroically to grow something digestible from that barren ground.)
You (and really, the whole of Lesswrong) should Popper’s paper “The Nature of Philosophical Problems and Their Roots in Science”. Here’s a pdf.
The section about Kant (towards the end) does an excellent job of explaining how he arrived at his (far too strong) system. In essence, Kant was faced with a paradox: On the one hand, Hume had proven that it’s impossible for us to attain certain knowledge about the natural world, and its spatiotemporal and causal structure. But on the other, Newton had apparently done just that! So Kant tries to resolve this by showing that concepts such as space, time and causation are preconditions for the possibility of being conscious at all. So ultimately Newton’s system is merely ‘unpacking’ what’s already implicit in the fact that we have minds, hence we can have certain knowledge of it after all.
Of course it’s confused and wrong. But in its time it was brilliant and original.
An excellent recommendation. Thank you.
I won’t disagree that it was brilliant and original. My question was whether it was helpful. Or, if you prefer, whether it was fruitful.
I’m a big fan of David Hume. And I understand that Hume’s writing on “the problem of induction” was fruitful to the extent that it stimulated Kant’s work. My problem is that my distaste for Kant leads me to doubt that Hume’s work here was fruitful. Or at least I have to doubt that it has yet borne fruit yet (though Laplace, Jaynes, and Solomonoff have certainly tried heroically to grow something digestible from that barren ground.)