Ch: > Whatever might be meant by the First > Enlightenment, it is highly > doubtful that Kant was any kind of foundation for it. > Most Intellectual Historians would put its roots back in > the 17thC. > Jonathan Israel for one, establishes Spinoza and the > foundational > thinker that set the E going. And he died 50 years before > Kant was > even born. ================== G: 1.When you meet Mr Jonathan Israel, tell him that he is a silly ass. Spinoza was a dogmatic speculator diametrically opposed of the axiomatic falsifiable spirit of the First Scientific Revolution.
2.The bedrock of the FE is the First Scientific Revolution of Galileo, Descartes and Newton. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot etc. were a thin pick of the iceberg often talking through their hats. 3.Founding does not mean preceding. As Kant conceived ontological foundation of the First Scientific Revolution, it must have been there before him. Just as Einstein created the Second Scientific Revolution prior to founding it ontologically in his "Physics and Reality", which is for us what Kritik was for the First Enlightenment. And its clear like a mountain source that, as I write, <<< Kant's view may only be understood as foundation of the First Enlightenment, as ontological support of the First Scientific Revolution culminating in Newton's Model. >>> Pseudo-philosophers too lazy to open a book of physics won't understand. Their problem. Georges. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
