I actually read a bit of it from page 80 onwards, if you've read Lagrange, I suppose you know exactly what Kant is saying. The contention is the applicability of the PSR and how human reason relates to the world. This is one of the reasons we're well advised to disallow Kant his distinctions. Thanks for the links Jean, unfortunate that I can't read or understand French . Dr. Feser has written quite a few things on the PSR, you should search his blog, but if you've already done that and are still unclear on things, keep posting!

Yes, but I can't imagine that they think that the PSR helps them unless they vastly misconstrue its application or if they think that pantheism is sufficient and an atheism. Since it would require that nature is its own reason in a PSR-hostile sense (nature construed as a "good enough" "brute fact") or else you would need to say that all principles of nature (extension, relation, actuality, etc)- though not natural in the usual sense -are somehow immanent in nature (pantheism).

Last edited by iwpoe (3/25/2016 8:57 am)