So he is agnostic about whether space and time might exist, and how they might exist, outside of our mode of intuition.
Even if we cannot step outside space-time (or matter-energy for that matter, or things-in-themselves) we can still engage in (critical) investigation of their existence and thus acquire (increasing and improved) knowledge of the subject at hand.
Of course, reading Kant he does have an odd definition of 'idealism'. Whereas most philosophy would argue that idealism is the position that reality is ultimately ideas and is contrasted with materialism, it seems to me that Kant argues that idealism is actually the act of criticism i.e., "The assertion that we can never be certain whether all of our putative outer experience is not mere imagining is idealism."
Which, imo, brings me back to Strawson! Thus I find myself more comfortable with critical realism (which doesn't comment on the ultimate nature of reality vis-a-vis idealism versus materialism, but rather concentrates on the realism aspect)
Hence, not a metaphysics, but more an epistemological methodology.
That is indeed welcome, but of course Kant was writing at a time before epistemology was even coined as an inquiry.
But I should step away from this topic, as I can go on for hours in this vein.
no subject
Even if we cannot step outside space-time (or matter-energy for that matter, or things-in-themselves) we can still engage in (critical) investigation of their existence and thus acquire (increasing and improved) knowledge of the subject at hand.
Thus I would tend towards a Newtonian position on space (contra Leibniz), and argue that there is evidence that it has an independent existence to matter, rather than being simply an abstract relationship between objects (and, likewise for time, between events) based on experimentation. Likewise I would argue that we have (via Gauss and Poincaré), again through experimentation, knowledge that space-time is effectively measured through curved, non-Euclidean geometry.
Of course, reading Kant he does have an odd definition of 'idealism'. Whereas most philosophy would argue that idealism is the position that reality is ultimately ideas and is contrasted with materialism, it seems to me that Kant argues that idealism is actually the act of criticism i.e., "The assertion that we can never be certain whether all of our putative outer experience is not mere imagining is idealism."
Which, imo, brings me back to Strawson! Thus I find myself more comfortable with critical realism (which doesn't comment on the ultimate nature of reality vis-a-vis idealism versus materialism, but rather concentrates on the realism aspect)
Hence, not a metaphysics, but more an epistemological methodology.
That is indeed welcome, but of course Kant was writing at a time before epistemology was even coined as an inquiry.
But I should step away from this topic, as I can go on for hours in this vein.
Oh hush now. If you can go on, please do!