I don't [know] any reason why I should treat you with more respect than you've shown for philosophers.
I respect people and their right to have opinions and views, as much as they could differ from my own ones. This is different from respecting the opinions themselves. I don't respect formal philosophy as I know it, but show me where I've been contemptuous to philosophers. You, on the order hand, have not been contemptuous only to my opinions (which I fully accept) but to me, with a How Do You Dare To Doubt Philosophy You Fool attitude.
Another important point is that I've lost the count of the times I've repeated in this thread that my knowledge of formal philosophy is far from extensive. I'm criticising the impression I have of formal philosophy, which is not entirely baseless either, as I have some knowledge of it. So you think my impression of formal philosophy is not accurate and thus my criticism is not valid? Fine, no need to make a fuss of it. Just discuss your knowledge with me and maybe one of us, hopefully even both of us, will learn something. That's the purpose of discussion, not humiliating your opponent.
If you tried to critically read Kant, you failed. Well, I tried to read critically your account of what Kant says, but it only was an example.
And, of course, it is useless to attempt to argue Kant's being right or wrong without being conversant both with his specific criticisms of Plato.
I'm not interested in discussing Kant nor Plato. It was you who brought up Kant. I'm confident enough that reading them would be useless that I don't plan to invest my limited time in it. I'm interested in a more general discussion about philosophy, one that does not involve specific authors. If you are convinced that what Kant says is fundamental to this discussion, you can summarize it. Let me summarize differential calculus as an example:
Functions are mathematical entities that can describe (among other things) how the variation of a quantity influences the variation of another quantity. For example, a function could describe how the variation of the quantity "time elapsed since I started to fill this glass" influences the variation of the quantity "amount of water in the glass".
Differentiation is a mathematical operation that, from a function, obtains another function, called its "derivative", that describes the "rate" of the former. In our example, the derivative would be a function that describes how the variation of the quantity "time elapsed since I started to fill this glass" influences the variation of the quantity "rate at which the glass is filling".
Differential calculus studies the relationship between functions and their derivatives, how to obtain a function from its derivative and viceversa, etc.
Undoubtedly my explanation is neither fully accurate nor complete, but it should be enough to provide a basis for a general discussion on differential calculus. Just the same, if you think some point of Kant's is interesting, you can summarize it and we'll discuss it.
In any case, one of Kant's achievements was that, unlike many of his precursors, he had the subtlety to realise that his criticisms of others' logic could be based on inductive principles rather than magic, transcendent logical laws - which ought to be a familiar concept for anyone with the slightest bit of education in math. That's precisely my point: it is familiar for most people. It is perfectly evident for me. Wouldn't I be wasting my time if I had bothered to decipher Kant's phenomenally twisted language only to arrive at something I already know?
But wait a moment! I'm saying that I already understand the point of an important philosopher without having read him! That must mean I'm being pretentious and despising philosophy. Bad, bad ElMiguel. But I'll tell you that I have neither read any book by Newton, Euler, Gauss or Cauchy or any other mathematical genius, and I don't think that detracts from my knowledge of maths. No doubt Newton's Principia Mathematica was of enormous interest when written, but that was three centuries ago. Science evolves, so that book is now phenomenally outdated. And you are telling me I must read Plato's books, which were written more that two millenia ago? Sorry, but I can't believe you.
[ Parent ]