Q. About Rationality and Nature

[Mudhammam]

All I can say upon nearing the completion of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is that it is by far the best case I have ever read for something as if a Supreme Being--existing necessarily as an ideal by which our sense of systematic unity, as in Ego and Reason (and consequentually, all empirical intuitions) find their basis.

Anyone know of any go-to philosophers who have since held their own against Kant's Critique? Schopenhauer?

---

As far as your use of rational, I think the difficulty I'm having with it is that it is a personal faculty, being applied to an impersonal phenomenon. I'm not sure, but I'm thinking that you perhaps mean "comprehensible."

Yes, I suppose that is what I mean, though to clarify, I suppose my question pertains to whether or not it is possible to have an empirical existence, in Time and Space, without a priori pure reason, which seems inextricably interwoven with the most basic categories of existence/non-existence, unity/divisibility, finite/infinite, etc.