I have some thoughts about what future work I might engage upon; here are some thoughts:
One of my lecturers used to have a phrase that goes of the form: “oh, clearly he hasn’t read x!” and snigger about it; normally he would say something like “Hempel should have read Aristotle!” or “Mill should have read Kant properly!” (actually the latter comes from Michael…). I think that we can vindicate Kant by seeing how he fits into contemporary debates; Let me give some examples
Guyer vindicates Kant’s position on the contemporary debate about the autonomy of art, and the other issue of the relation between aesthetic significance and moral content; namely: is morally bad art a relevant feature for aesthetic analysis? Let me put that in another way: is the fact that the dude of American Psycho evil, relevant to it being a good or bad film? [Guyer, 2006 – Values of Beauty]
My (currently favourite) example is of Langton’s vindication Kant on the contemporary issue of Properties; which has been praised from the likes of the esteemed Kant scholars, Guyer and Allison, to the seminal master of recent philosophy – David Lewis. Langton’s claim is a defence of Kant’s noumena by imposing an intrinsic/non-relational aspect of it; to say something in noumenal terms is to talk of its nonrelational properties. The wider issue of Kant on properties is VERY interesting [I think Michael wants to say more about Kant on properties; or perhaps in the future, his own Kant-influenced view on the modern conception of properties in relation to possible worlds [namely with Lewis]]
Okay my second interest is basically point 1.3.; but I think it is so important to me it counts as a seperate project from the rest (even though it is part of the ‘Kantian vindication’ project that I’m considering): here it goes (this is where Michael and Destre have interesting conversations…)
Thought 1: Kant identifies two aspects of philosophy: theoretical (concerning cognition and nature proper) and practical (concerning the application of the free will, or the deliberation of actions in the domain distinct from the former [theoretical] whereby the former pertains to the sensible, theoretical, and natural causal realm, and the latter concerns a special and distinct kind of causality.
Thought 2: Kant’s interest was in the nature of reason, or, perhaps in more understandable/compatible-with-Hume terms; psychology (in the sense of analysis of the faculties of mind). If we are to take a contemporamous interest in this project. Let us look at two pairs of issues; lets call them Type-phi, and Type-Psy; and Praxis against Theoria
I need to say more about the second point…but it is too big an issue to ponder for now…