Moreover, he entirely ignores Kant's critique of the cosmological argument.
On pages 146 and 147, Raghuramaraju quotes a large amount of material from primary and secondary sources about classical Indian philosophy.
In view of the fact that the classical Indian philosophical tradition came to focus intensely on the questions of whether a self exists and how we can know about it, the topic Raghuramaraju chooses to discuss would seem to have a great deal of potential.
Unfortunately, this author ends up accomplishing little more than offering an example of how not to do comparative philosophy.
” The answer, if it can be stated simply, is that our knowledge is constrained to mathematics and the science of the natural, empirical world.
It is impossible, Kant argues, to extend knowledge to the supersensible realm of speculative metaphysics.
Reason itself is structured with forms of experience and categories that give a phenomenal and logical structure to any possible object of empirical experience.
These categories cannot be circumvented to get at a mind-independent world, but they are necessary for experience of spatio-temporal objects with their causal behavior and logical properties.
The example of similarities between entire lifetimes of musical compositions is obviously vastly more complex.
But Kant, if we imagine him as Dancy's opponent, could certainly claim that we judge Mozart and Haydn to be similar by noting certain specific respects in which they are similar, and that we are therefore applying a complex body of universal Deshpande does attempt a reconciliation between Kant and Aristotle, but recognizes that although the issues that concern them are often similar, they differ in their conceptions of the role of reason in the moral life.