I have just joined the forum.
I've been studying Kant for a long time now, and have formed some very dogmatic opinions/interpretations of Kant.
Many of the questions posed with regard to Kant's critical philosophy are limiting in scope in that they overlook the fundamental purpose that Kant had in mind when he wrote this philosophy. This purpose can only be gathered from taking in the whole, and not simply the parts, as Kant himself mentions in the opening to his "Critique of Pure Reason." He has reason to believe most of his readers will misinterpret his work because they will not put the required effort into it. And from all my reading of secondary works, Kant was absolutely right in holding to this suspicion.
The great variety of secondary works are for the most part, what I call closed interpretations of Kant.
If one adopts a closed interpretation of Kant it will block them from truly understanding the depth of Kant's critical insights, and furthermore, it will not allow them to understand the fundamental intention Kant had I mind when he wrote his critical philosophy.
You are quite right in what you've stated in your post to the above question.
However, Kant's critical insights go much further than most readers of Kant are willing to admit, or perhaps, they are not reading the relevant sections that show just how far-reaching his critical insights were, or what can be possible, given these insights.
To cut matters short, I have formulated an answer in response to Kant's challenge. The challenge Kant issues in his Prolegomena can be read in the Appendix, in the context of Kant's response to a reviewer of his "Critique of Pure Reason."
I have started another thread, with a question, directing members to my cite, at Edit (Moderator): Link Removed
This presents in part my answer to Kant.
There are a number of critical quotes from the CPR and the Prolegomena, and I've also quoted Hegel, where he is relevant, including Henri Bergson, and some of Kant's remarks that point to an interpretation of Kant that goes beyond the standard, orthodox (what I call closed) interpretation of Kant put forth by many scholars.
You might find this argument of some assistance if for only the purpose of opening up your understanding of Kant. I argue for an open, as opposed to a closed (skeptically grounded) interpretation of Kant.
Kant's critical philosophy allows for just such an argument as can be found at my cite, but it requires in-depth concentration and study of Kant to really get to the heart of the matter. Most readers simply do not have the depth of concentration it takes to understand Kant fully, which means to the point of taking in the possibility of just such an argument as the one I'm presenting to Kant and the challenge that his critical philosophy poses.