Arguing against the validity of reason - D'Souza - Kant

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I need to read me some Kant.

You might try Kant's Critique of Pure Reason for this argument.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sorry, I don't understand the distinction. I get "reason mediated through our perceptions" but how would one apply reason directly to an object?

Try two different claims:
1) The coffee table is strong enough to hold my cup of tea
2) The coffee table, as I perceive it, is strong enough to hold my cup of tea

Please note that the second claim is softer. It does not imply that my reasoning abilities are as direct, objective, and solid as the first claim does.

Note that either way I'm going to put my cup on the table. Or, returning to the baseball scenario, either way the batter is going to hit the baseball he perceives. But with the second claim the faculty of reason is more limited in terms of scope.

Here we can understand that Kant did not deny reason completely. He just wanted to soften its claims on reality.

Does this make sense?