reflections in philosophy of psychology, broadly construed
What Google autofills when I type in "Schwitzgebel".
Personally I find your attacks on Kant refreshing and interesting, because usually I hear nothing but unspoken or spoken praise for Kant as a thinker. The general consensus is that while some of what Kant said is outdated or silly, much of what he said is revolutionary, consistent, and solid. However, while I do find usefulness, I really do find myself agreeing with you when you say "I read Kant as a master at promising philosophers what they want and then effusing a haze of words with glimmers enough of hope that readers can convince themselves that there is something profound underneath." He has good ideas and some solid arguments, but he has more than his fair share of crock. I think an honest assessment of which are which is really necessary.
Post a Comment