Welcome!

I'm also a newbie. I'm looking forward to hearing your viewpoint. I also have a long standing interest in Hume, Kant, Hegel, and Russian culture. Is BC similar to Russia in some ways?

And Bruckner and Brahms and Elgar, and Handel, and Puccini and Wagner (well MAYBE), and Strauss (both of them) and Haydn and Vivaldi.
Kant being central to modern philosophy, I am sure there are enough of us around to perhaps discuss his philosophy; there are certainly more than enough Members interested in discussing the ideals and aims of the philosophy.
Welcome to Philforums!
Regards,
John

Maybe Wagner? Ah, JG!

Welcome to the forum, Shoshtakovich! Schopenhauer also thought everyone else had misunderstood Kant. I look forward to reading about your thoughts on the man's work.

Well, my view on Kant is particularly my own. I have sent a copy of my answer to Kant's challenge to a philosophy professor somewhere in the States (stupid me ... I throw out all old correspondence) ... just remember ... I think it was George Washington University ... who said my 'science of metaphysics' worked, but he couldn't see how the conclusion followed from the premise (though it does follow, necessarily so). I have spent a lifetime answering Kant. Kant's definition of a 'science of metaphysics,' is easy enough to understand. He wanted the a priori certainty in metaphysics that he saw in mathematics and geometry, and so spoke of these disciplines as being a priori, in method. What metaphysics lacked, and this is the reason he shunned all the metaphysicians of his day, is this a priori certainty. I'll give you a very brief example: Say I imagine a sphere, like a balloon of any certain volume, and let's say in this volume there is a certain density. If the balloon is inflated, this density will decrease. If the balloon is decreased in volume, the density will increase. This is simple. But this is the kind the kind of reasoning Kant wanted from metaphysicians. There is a certain inarguable certainty in the above, simple example. Over thirty years I've developed four a priori principles, as a science, in line with Kant's critical demands, and it is a science according to Kant's definition, and despite the professor's judgment that the conclusion of my science (in answer to Kant) is a non-sequitar, this judgment of his was from over ten years ago. Since then, I've made it quite clear how the conclusion does follow. If you're wondering what my science does. Well, here's where all the skeptics will cry out. It explains the origin of three universals: Spacetime, Mass, and Mind. It tackles Kant's first antinomy, offers a solution, and the causal process that comes from the premis explains how spacetime, mass, and mind, emerged from the ultimate beginning. For those who know something about the big bang theory, my science has it that the big bang did take place. It also explains why our universe began with a singularity. This as well, comes out of the science. It was not my intention to explain it. It is simply there, as a necessary part of the overall causal process explained. So much for a short introduction into why I'm interested in Kant. Hope to present the premise for my 'causal argument' which it may be called for short, sometime here in the future ... if there's anyone interested. If not, well, I can certainly understand that as well. In my spare time, I much more prefer reading P.I. novels as opposed to philosophy. The copy of Kant's 'Critique' and his other work 'Prolegomena ...' are dogeared and well marked with all the relevant sections marked off and highlighted and explaiend. Anyone lost on Kant or with a question on Kant, I'd be happy to answer as best I can. Regards all.