The Dreamer of Reason
What separates a mystic's visions of the spirit world from a metaphysician's system of immaterial souls, if neither can be checked against any possible experience?
Swedenborg's reports of conversing with the dead are treated as a sceptic would treat them: unfalsifiable, uncheckable, the private theatre of an overheated brain. Then Kant turns the knife on his own trade — the philosopher who spins immaterial substances out of pure reason is doing what the visionary does, only with concepts for visions, a dreamer of reason beside a dreamer of sensation, with nothing to arbitrate between them. Read ever since as the moment his patience with speculative metaphysics ran out, the book clears in negative the very site the first Critique would later build on.
- metaphysics
- epistemology
- limits of knowledge
- experience
- reason
- knowledge
- perception
- philosophy of mind
- imagination
- skepticism
Enter a dialogue
- You seat the mystic and the metaphysician on the same bench — is that fair to the philosopher who at least reasons?
- A friend swears he speaks with the dead and cannot be argued out of it — how would you have me treat his reports?
- If neither vision nor pure reason can be checked against experience, what claims about the soul must an honest thinker stop making?
- What tells a spirit-seer's dream of the dead apart from a metaphysician's system of immaterial souls?
- Where reason cannot prove what I hope about immortality, where does your little book send me to stand instead?