The basic gist is that, while Hume assumes you have sense-data and are learning structures like causation from this sense-data, Kant is saying you need concepts of causation to have sense-data at all.
Hmm. Both of these ideas seem very wrong (though Kant’s, perhaps, more so). Is there anything else of value? If this (and similar things) are all that there is, then maybe rationalists are right to mostly ignore Kant…
Hmm. Both of these ideas seem very wrong (though Kant’s, perhaps, more so). Is there anything else of value? If this (and similar things) are all that there is, then maybe rationalists are right to mostly ignore Kant…