The issue of Kant’s famous challenge has been an eye-opener on the question of academic mindsets.
I think that Kant asked a simple question thus proposing a challenge about world history. The solution in WHEE is a no-brainer, after some preparatory study.
The solution to his challenge is clearly discussed, analyzed, and partially solved in WHEE, but Kant scholars refuse to even mention the issue and recoil against an outsider like myself. That WHEE might have contributed something to a classic question is beyond mention. Part of the problem is that Kant scholars can’t deal with a critic of Darwin. How is that possible? Kant seeded the teleomechanists, and you must either grant that Kant ‘would have had’ a problem with Darwin or refine your eloquence via doublespeak. ‘Would have had’ is grounds for slipping away from straight speech, no doubt. Kant was also a critic of the design argument (although he seems to have acknowledged some form of ‘demiurgic’ power in history (??).
I think the same is true of Hegel. I have unsubbed from Kant and Hegel lists for trying to be open on this question.
The fact has to be faced that academic philosophers have obfuscated the issue of Kant and evolution.
In any case the resolution of Kant’s Challenge isn’t all that hard, and WHEE simply looks for a ‘non-random pattern’. The latter is the easiest and safest way to approach the highly confusing question of an ‘historical dynamic’. From there we can see that there is such a dynamic, in the range of observation, and that it is visible, for example, in the data of the Axial Age.
At this point the Iron Curtain of silence falls and there is no further discussion from a non-academic subhuman like myself. It is baffling to deal with this state of mind. It is far worse than stupid.
I say this because it is hard to conceive of Kantian studies really clarifyng QM questions. To be fair, it they tried, they would be attacked at once, perhaps the same situation with evolution issues.