Although Maimon is a transcendental philosopher in a Kantian tradition (both judging by his self-profession and by the philosophical input of the Essay), it is clear that he is negotiating certain philosophical terrains that are not unlike those of Kant’s proposed attempt to reconcile rationalism (Leibniz) and empiricism (Hume). In the Preface A of CPR Kant writes:
In the beginning, under the administration of the dogmatists, her rule was despotic. Yet because her legislation still retained traces of ancient barbarism, this rule gradually degenerated through internal wars into complete anarchy; and the skeptics, a kind of nomads who abhor all permanent cultivation of the soil, shattered civil unity from time to time. But since there were fortunately only a few of them, they could not prevent the dogmatists from continually attempting to rebuild, thought never according to a plan unanimously accepted among themselves. [Aix]
I’m sure there’s already some German Kantians who wrote tomes about the difference between the Preface A and the Preface B (the one with “Copernican Revolution” reference), but I have to say that every time I reread the prefaces to CPR, the political metaphors seem to be much stronger than generally accepted, but that’s another topic. Clearly in the case of the first Preface, Kant saw his philosophical work as a work of reconciliation between the forever fighting dogmatists-rationalists (Leibniz, Wolff, Baumgarten) and skeptics-empiricists (Hume, Locke). Maimon enters the same battle, it seems, and claims to be fighting it on Kant’s side since, according to Maimon, the victory that Kant has announced in CPR (“I have succeeded in removing all errors” [Axii]) is only half-won.