Kant, Reinhold, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel.. Is there anything left from the Kantian movement today in the thoughts of knowledge and nature? The question is focused especially after Popper essentially "removed" (though I don't know if successfully, tell me if not) the dialectic method at the core of those Idealists as pseudo-science.

  • 1
    As far as I can tell nothing has changed. Kant and Hegel are still ahead of the game waiting for the rest of the Academy to catch up or to leapfrog them into nondualism.
    – user20253
    Feb 11 '18 at 11:57
  • 1
    Idealism has been shadowed since the 19th century for different reasons. This is particularly true in analytic philosophy throughout the 20th century. Russell and the logical empiricists were quite dismissive of it. However there were neo-kantian in the beginning of 20th century. To my knowledge, large parts of continental philosophy (phenomenology, existentialism) take Hegel, Fichte and Schelling to be important figures. In the analytic tradition, Kant's philosophy also influenced pragmatism a lot and it is still somehow influential (but not Hegel Fichte or Schelling). Feb 11 '18 at 14:29
  • 2
    Anything left? It is hard to avoid them. Positivists themselves were Kantian through and through. More direct followers are Sellars, who is also partial to Hegel, Michael Friedman and McDowell, whose opposition to "disenchanted nature" you may find congenial. Pretty much all of continental philosophy of science is permeated with both.
    – Conifold
    Feb 11 '18 at 23:57
  • 1
    "Scientific community" is very diverse. Physicists are fans, in aspirational sense especially, biologists, psychologists and sociologists not so much. It is hard to stage something like critical experiments in their fields, and they are not mathematizable enough to make falsificationism formally applicable. Bayesian approach of slow accumulation of improvements is much more popular in soft sciences, I wrote a brief review on hsm.
    – Conifold
    Feb 13 '18 at 0:23
  • 1
    The notion of the inaccessibility of noumena seems to shape the entire modern approach to science at a very deep level. So score one for Kant (who also did science.). Dialectic is still a valid way of generating hypotheses and evolving theories, it is just not a reasonable way of testing them. Science obviously uses it often: Speeds add, the speed of light is constant, the Lorentz computation... String theory seems to run entirely on dialectic interpolations most of the time: we have fice string theories, find the conflict and add a dimension, we have one string theory. Apr 6 '20 at 15:54

The question is focused especially after Popper essentially "removed" (though I don't know if successfully, tell me if not) the dialectic method at the core of those Idealists as pseudo-science.

Well Joseph Brenner has written in Logic in Reality (2008):

I thus claim that logic not only should but can be extended to reality, provided one takes into account, and gives proper metaphysical weight to, some of its characteristics that have tended to be neglected. These include the concepts, present also since antiquity, of dialectics – conflict as well as change and alternation between the different but closely related, interactive elements of a phenomenon.

So I'd say the dialectical forms of thought are still alive and kicking. One point I would emphasise is that dialectics is not just about conflict - this often seems to take the lion share of attention, but also about synthesis ...

  • This question should've sunk in the sea of unanswered questions on the site :) don't know why it has been edited (with merely tag edit) and popped up again. The comments (and your answer) are more than enough for this ignorant question! Apr 6 '20 at 10:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.