{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024838012958963283, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.904458598726115, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Epistemology and Ontology

I would like to comment on A. W. J. Harper's note to my article on first philosophy. In that article I argued for two general points: first, that Descartes' influence has been so pervasive that nearly all post-Cartesian philosophers share certain Cartesian characteristics that set them apart from classical (pre-Cartesian) philosophers and, second, that the classical approach to philosophy has been abandoned without sufficient reason, it being as compatible with the facts of perception and empirical science as the modern, and needs to be re-evaluated, as it can deal more successfully with some philosophical issues than can its post-Cartesian counterpart. In the course of this argument I pointed out some of the limitations of the Kantian position and Mr. Harper has sought to extend this line of argument into a refutation of Kant, but he underestimates the strength of the Kantian position.