This is a nice try, but there are a lot of parts that made me wince. 1. The essay starts off with "If you are interested in truth..." without ever defining wha

This is a nice try, but there are a lot of parts that made me wince. 1. The essay starts off with "If you are interested in truth..." without ever defining what exactly they mean by "truth". 2. What is with this "inside" and "outside"? I don't think Kant ever used such philosophically imprecise terminology. They define rationalists as understanding the world "from the inside" and empiricists as understanding it "from the outside". By framing it in such terms, they have already put a metaphysical stake in the ground. And really, how do empiricists understand the world "from the outside"? Do they mean that the thinking is done from the outside, or that they receive sensory input from the outside and then understand it..."from the outside"? This is so ridiculous it makes me wince. Also, rationalists understand the world "from the inside" why? Because their sensory input comes from the inside? When they frame it this way--as inside versus outside--it really amounts to do the same thing, doesn't it? Kant is weeping in his grave. 3. It's too bad they didn't mention Kant's Copernican turn. Mentioning that would have been quite revealing. 4. This may have been too complex for such a short summary, but Kant's Synthetic Unity of Apperception is extremely important.