David Carroll

On what basis did Kant critique both empiricism and rationalism? For it is clear that if Kant's observations were true, then they followed either from evidence derived from the senses or from logical first principles or a combination of both. But the first is empiricism, which he claims is suspect, the second is rationalism which is equally suspect, and a combination of two suspect things does not suddenly become unsuspect. It would follow, then, that his critique is also subject to his critique, which is circular and absurd.

Or was he blessed with a sudden revelation from the Divine? Was this diminutive little professor from Koenigsberg so special as to be the 1st recipient of Truth?

Or is it that he implies that speaking out of one's derriere. is better than to speak of that which is evident or of that which is rational? For this is precisely what one does when one speaks neither of what is evident nor of what is logically reasonable. Indeed, the next century after Kant was of hundreds of philosophers speaking out their derriere.

All philosophy is subjective nonsense. Except for the statement that all philosophy is subjective nonsense.