“Relative” Spontaneity and Reason’s Self-Knowledge

Kant holds that the whole “higher faculty of knowledge” (‘reason’ or ‘understanding’ in a broad sense), is spontaneous faculty. But what could this mean? It seems it either be perfectly innocent claim very dangerous one. The thought reason because not wholly passive, just slave to bombards senses. If so, then rejection Hume’s radical empiricism would suffice for Kant’s claim. reason, and ‘I think’ which expresses it, free, having power produce something entirely from itself. While freedom characteristic practical general, even its theoretical employment? Some contemporary interpreters have admirably defended ‘dangerous’ conception by stripping implication makes general self-sufficient. I attempt add effort. However, contend weightier spontaneity (‘absolute’ ‘non-relative’ spontaneity) requires abandoning certain approach question has been assumed virtually everyone debate—namely, can answered siding with so-called ‘metaphysical’ ‘epistemic’ Kant. My goal suggest proper perspective on reason’s resists such characterizations all together, thereby any conditions under understood as ‘relative’ anything.