Pure thought experiment in/on the Critique of Pure Reason

[Jerin]

The Critique of Pure Reason delves not so deep within our a priori(s) - ergo the supposed 'metaperspectival' coined, as well as an audacity to think of a TOE (Theory of Everything) connection, fails -
as it cannot even tap in to collective unconsciousness.
No 'mesoscopic' (Kantian philosophic position) humanly stance approaches multiverses of micro- and/or macroscales across cosmos. Though influenced.

Formal be the keyword here.
For 'formalism' under veracities of existences, including all oncoming experiences, is mere illusion, temporally.
Spatially, Kant's nifty 'system', is but a speck amongst stars - innumerable.
Like as was a-Hilbert a-high praising a-formalism, but up comes a Godel with Incompleteness theorems.

Artistic inspirations and/or influences, whether dream, slip, or stream - consciousness, lights independently of reason itself.
Tho, I must admit, art itself ultimately subsumes within an inner sanctum of philosophy.
But that's another philosophic..

Cognitive sciences ultimately supplants every Kantian philosophics,
save Kant's wondrous distinguishing phenomena -noumena distinction (a pinnacle expression of a synthetic a priori btw).
For a duality forms an integral in philosophy, i.e. existence entirety tho on the whole as one, still the sciences shall solely infinitely, ergo endlessly, therefor illusionary - explain.
In other words - Cognitive Science may be richer (as supported by its interdisciplinaries), but Kant's Philosophy delves deeper.

The lesson of the Krell in Forbidden Planet can be applied hence, btw..

For again what literary riches reaches to near infinite, not in a Kantian critical approaches sense, but in our intuitive collective unconsciousness, wherein lies subsumed - the supposed synthetic a priori(s).

Proof -
see linkage philosophical Reid's 'Common Sense'; logical Peirce's 'Abduction'; and psychological Jung's 'Collective Unconscious' -.

[Feliks]

No. Popular science (armchair nonsense about micro-universes or multiple universes, articles about CAT scans in 'Psychology Today') --none of this refutes Immanuel Kant. The sciences are merely medieval charlatanry, updated for modern times. 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'...(versus) 'How many electrons can exhibit this kind of spin?'--either system is irrelevant. Kant is concerned with 'what is our human duty?' And he formulates principles which apply everywhere and anywhere that humans find themselves. People need to stop being duped by lame, 'Yahoo Science Feature (RSS feeds)' on their homepages. Stop the hare-brained over-dazzlement with pointless 'oooh aaaah' technology.

[Jerin]

Feliks wrote: "No. Popular science (armchair nonsense about micro-universes or multiple universes, articles about CAT scans in 'Psychology Today') --none of this refutes Immanuel Kant. The sciences are merely med..."

Good point, Felix.
I concur.
From our 21st century standpoint.