We stumbled backwards into submitting transcendental idealism as a challenge to Smolin’s project in his About Time. It is a very strong challenge, but one that physicists simply ignore. Let me hasten to add that I am not a Kantian true believer: the issues raised by Kant and Schopenhauer constitute elusive and difficult themes to understand and aply. The issues of the categories in Kant and the simplification in Schopenhauer are hard to fully understand and I am in no position to take a strong stance. On the other hand the research into the ‘eonic effect’ forced me to stumble backwards into a form of Kantian thinking based on his essay on history. My strategy to avoid complications was to take the first paragraph of his classic essay, Kant’s Challenge, and work with that. The essay has other challenges, and WHEE answers all of them: the question of nature’s secret plan is virtually solved by the ‘eonic model’ in WHEE. The progression toward the perfect civil state is directly resolved by the macro model.
And yet the strange reality is that I can’t even communicate by email with a Kant scholar. They refuse to mention, ever, anything to do with WHEE.
One reason is that the Kant community has to ‘lie about Darwinism’ even as Kant gave the strongest injunction against lying. It ought to be obvious to the point of thundering tarnation that Kant wouldn’t have been a darwinist: he even triggered a whole movement the teleomechanists. Whom Kantians now hardly mention.
But Kant scholars have to join the pretense on darwin’s theory in academia. If you simply shut up and never never answer an email to someone like me, what to say of mentioning me in public, you can evade actually lying. It is a tricky situation: if Kantians could be tricked into a press conference a first question would be, could Kant ever have been a darwinist and as a Kant scholar will you pledge bit to lie about this fact….?