Kant is Wrong

We say that history is interesting but perhaps not crucial in the context of individualism. I mean, I think there's a false dichotomy presented here and that is one view holds that you can derive anything from a particular historical path and it comes in empirical view. And if we know the history, we know where we should be tomorrow, we know what way we should stand today. And the other path is, we can know history, we can know facts, we can know what's going on, we can derive from some a priori axioms so we can derive a truth right now. And both the false both of those using my view are false. And, you know, I reject both of those views. And I think the better thinkers of the Enlightenment did as well. Although they sometimes fall into the trap of appearing like rationalists. I agree on one thing and that is Kant is probably the most destructive philosopher since Plato, who was pretty destructive himself, but part of the problem is that Kant divorces reason from reality. That is, he divorces reason from history. He divorces reason from experience because we don't have direct experience of reality according to Kant, right? We were removed from their direct experience, but I view Kant as the anti-enlightenment, that is, I view Kant as the destroyer of good enlightenment thinking and yoga, and I acknowledge a lot of the history of philosophy. People who do the history of philosophy view Kant as the embodiment of the life that is the ultimate but I think that's a mistake. I think both were so and cons of fundamentally the goal, the mission in life is to destroy the nightmare. So my view is neither of those options is the right option. That is the true reason-based reason is not divorced from reality is quite the opposite reason is a tool. It's a faculty of identifying and integrating, what it's identifying is integrating the facts of reality as, as we know them through sense perception or through the study of history through what actually happened. So it's the integration of those facts. It's the knowledge of that history. And then what we do is we abstract away principles based on what's worked in the past, what hasn't worked in the past, the consequences of different ideas, different paths, different actions. We abstract away principles that then can be universal. Not always we make mistakes, right? We can come up with a universal principle. It turns out that it's not, but if we have the whole scope of human history, we can derive principles as we do. In life as individuals, we derive principles that are then truths that we can live by but you don't do that by ignoring history. You do that by learning history by understanding in a traditional way it leads to and then trying to do better and I think good thinkers are constantly trying to do better based on what they know about the past and what they know about the present.