Why is Kant credited with critical philosophy when Descartes

>>9032679
Define "critical philosophy"

I was reading Spinoza's On the Improvement of the Understand and he pretty much ripped off Descarte's Discourse and Meditations wholesale with more literary flourish. How did he get away with that shit?

Because Descartes is stupid and boring, while Kant is boring but not stupid

>>9032679
Because Descartes' skepticism is basically just a thought experiment. Critical philosophy implies transcendental critique, i.e. an investigation into the conditions for the possibility for any experience at all

File: Descartes Skull.jpg (65KB, 374x500px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 374x500px

>>9032679

> Descartes obviously pioneered it

You gotta back this claim up, anon. As asked by >>9032700, how do you understand the term "critical philosophy?" I'd specifically ask: do you think Kant's criticisms of Descartes (especially regarding the paralogisms of pure reason) rely on a methodology that is equally dogmatic as the very methodology being criticized? And why or why not?