Let me put these thoughts in terms of remarks
I. Kant accepts necessary causation. Which Hume and many philosophers today deny.
II. Kant puts a LOT of emphasis on the mind (too much) – well the book was named the ‘examination of the mind’ (Critique of Pure Reason) the question is – what is the cart and what is the horse? what forces experience into us – the mind (,or language?)?
III. Like I have said before, Kant is not an empiricist. Kant denies Humean constant conjunction because it leads to an uncertain world (philosophers of science constantly deal with the problem of induction that comes from Hume). Kant has his rationalist tendencies in putting the mind in the forefront.
IV. What are the objects of noumena? Well basically they are the objects of phenomena but how they really are, they also include concepts which seem queer to a phenomenal/empiricist ontology, such as the existence of the soul, God, or freewill (before you counter with Hume’s compatibilism, I don’t consider that proper freewill)
V. You say I dismiss Kantian ethics. That’s possibly because I don’t know enough about it as I do about his epistemology and metaphysics. Yes, ethics does come from his foundation. I find something very queer about his ethics, after reading Nietzsche’s critique. I think Kant’s influence of Pietism led him to conventional morality, he was a moral dogmatist even though he was epistemologically critical. I don’t want to talk about Kant’s ethics (in this thread), because while his ethics is grounded in his epistemology, the reverse is not true. I do find some aspects of Kant’s ethics very interesting (notion of moral worth, denigration of happiness, Categorical imperative: formula of humanity)