Talk:Immanuel Kant/Archive 3

More comments from Spinoza1111 on Influence
Looked at it today. Looks like the Kruppster has made the section all respectable, with NO attempt to show how Kant changed philosophy (perhaps by starting with the way Kant changed the style, in which philosophical texts are written).Oh well. At least my factoid about the relationship of Kant to mathematical intuitionism remains.However, if you perform the sort of high-class and dignified vandalism of the sort that the Kruppster (whose very name gives me, perhaps unjustly, the willies, it being the name of a prewar German arms manufacturer and as such redolent of the mailed fist) has performed, then the common reader, in my opinion and with all respect, will suffer...while the writers win a pony from the Cite Monster.You see, Herr Krupp, you are by draining Influence of philosophical content, reducing the article to be free of what you so freely call "editorialising" and what another calls "jargon", you wind up with a circular, and to the common reader impenetrable, network of cites. "To understand Kant, see Schopenhauer: to understand Schopenhauer, see Kant".It reminds me of the old joke, to debug a C program, change your major.I wasn't born yesterday. I am well aware that the harmless drudge (not the unspeakable Matt, instead for the literate, the author of Johnson's dictionary) is not being paid by the printer to DO philosophy even if to make things clear he pulls philosophical stunts in his classroom at the Seaman's Mission, showing the matelots how philosophy is done.I can see where you, in good faith and as a responsible member of society, desire to make the article as uninformative as the dictionary on things that matter. I am not being sarcastic.I have been told elsewhere that wikipedia is not a book of instructions.However, please note that working for free changes the rules. I can propose that guidelines, for writing lexicons, are indeed only guidelines made in Claude Levi-Strauss' sense for transgression.It is in other words, a reduction to absurdity to so reify the goal, to falsely believe that there could be an artifact which is purely any one thing or the other. I conclude that I'm right and you're wrong. The Influence section needs a statement of what the Copernican revolution was and to assert its success as a philosophical-anthropological fact.Thank you for your attention.Spinoza1111 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 edits Influence section
(Sigh) the Kruppster (Anthony Krupp) has returned the Influence section to its original error, which was before my edit to say that, gawrsh, dis Kant guy totally changed philassphee: before him dem philosophers speculated abstrfactly bout nuttin but he wuz cool.Spinoza1111 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There were 1,637 edits to the Kant article before you began editing here, and yet the article was in a state of "original error" then? That seems like messianic thinking on your part. Please address problems to any changes, preferably at the foot of this talk page, and we can discuss them. Preferably like adults. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 22:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Anthony: but how many of these people have read Kant? Spinoza1111 03:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I will address your other concerns at greater leisure later. I apologize to you if my "mysogynist" humor about tangled pantyhose offended. Spinoza1111 03:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is brutally ahistorical to say that Kant made philosophy "critical, and self-critical" because Socrates himself, to an extent even the pre-Socratics was "critical and self-critical" and even Kong Fu Zi phrased his analects as a dialog, in which criticism and self-criticism played a part.Spinoza1111 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What would you recommend saying?--Anthony Krupp 22:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article does not say "that Kant made philosophy 'critical, and self-critical'." It currently says that Kant made "philosophy 'critical' and self-critical in a new way." Those are two different statements. So: is there something wrong with the latter one?--Anthony Krupp 22:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That contribution and the addition re Kant's relationship to mathematical intuitionism have been vandalized and removed.Spinoza1111 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Influence article has been changed therefore to reflect the novelty of Kantian criticism and self-criticism. The student deserves to know in what way Kant was critical and self-critical.Spinoza1111 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, readers deserve to know in what way Kant was critical and self-critical. In the appropriate section. Not in "Influences."--Anthony Krupp 22:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Kritik is a noun. But the root is the verb to critique and to use either the German or the English word focuses attention on a principled attempt to avoid reification.Spinoza1111 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm willing to listen.--Anthony Krupp 22:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

'preciate it. But we seem to have a vandalism problem directed not at words but at ideas and contributions. Spinoza1111 14:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added more to Influence because it failed to mention Kant's Influence on 20th century philosophy of mathematics in the form of Brouwer and Heyting's intuitionism. This new material also links Kant by way of continental European thought and the way Kant is taught on the Continent to structured programming. Treat the two issues separately, because the link to intuitionism is slightly stronger than the link to structured programming.Spinoza1111 13:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept any rebuke for fighting with amerindianarts. I am weary of simple bullying, and condign riposte to same, being treated with a false even-handedness. Kemo sabe simply had the rag on, and wanted to assert his authority, and he was the serious violator of community standards.Spinoza1111 13:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty much fed up with my courtesy and following the rules being met by people with an authoritarian personality disorder who think that courtesy and an attempt to follow the rules means oh goodie, here's someone I can shit all over because he's not stronger than me.


 * The edits still do not conform to the inline notation request by Wiki project (see the current bottom of the page. That is authoritarian, yes, but it is not me-it is Wiki policy and request.  You edit does not comply.  I suggest compliance or moving it to the talk page until it does.  Amerindianarts 00:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's not go through that again. I inline noted the last edit to this section -- but I don't feel like being the only one.  Amerindianarts is absolutely right about this.  We should be citing source as per policy when ever possible. Perhaps, as an initial edit that notes where it needs citation, it is ok (i.e. if you add your own fact tags).  But, otherwise, cite your sources.Li3crmp 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Influence section was OK but started with a Philosophy 101 for Boneheads mistake: it's quite wrong to say that philosophers before or after Kant were engaged in mutually contradictory "dialectical" artillery duel. In fact, subsets including the pair set Plato and Aristotle agreed about some things and disagreed about other things. It's an anti-intellectual mistake to say "yo, dem philasterfers say one t'ing afta anudda and nevah agree".

But the Influence writers got the Copernican revolution idea right. But then, laboring under the prestige of Science, they diss whatever it was that Kant gives us because it ain't, and I agree, "positive scientific Knowledge" (oooooo).

"Mister Scientist, Mister Scientist, there's water on my head, there's water on my head." "That's Rain, Johnny!"

- Ask Mister Science, Duck's Breath Mystery Theater

OK, it isn't. Nor did Kant say it was. It is instead, and this is what the writers missed, something without which "knowledge" becomes just data. That is, Kant didn't "have" the knowledge that without his Critique nothing makes any sense, but he knew it, because there can, it seems, be unreifiable knowledge.

Know-ing that readily can be spoken of with antinomy as Knowledge is your positive scientific Knowledge. But for Kant, there is a know-ing that topologically lies outside the terrain, the Green Zone if you will, the kraal if you prefer, the concentration camp if you must, of reified, glittering, frozen and therefore potentially dead Knowledge.

I conclude that the name for the verb is Kritik and that in the beginning wasn't sense data but the critical question, "hey, what the FUCK is going down here? Who am I? Where do I come from? Where am I going."

When Hercules awoke from his troubled sleep after his labors and his furor, his first sentence had, in Seneca, the form of a question: quae hic locus, quae regio, quae mundi plaga. I submit that the fact that Philosophy 101 for Boneheads is peddled by cow colleges as just another purveyor of Knowledge in what is horribly called the "marketplace of ideas" (as if to recommend to scholars the ethics of the bourse, the bazaar, and the *souk*, itself a criminal act) causes wikipedians to misrepresent Kant as merely taking another philosophical stab at being cool, like a scientist or something, and thereby, like one dem scientists or something, get a life and access to chicks.

This is the sort of herd vulgarity that makes wikipedia, in the sense of Hegel's dialectic, the best and worst of places in the world, where wisdom cries out in the streets but is not heard. Spinoza1111 13:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

merging of Kantianism
I notice that the article has a suggestion on it that the Kantianism article be merged with it. I am sceptical for the following two reasons. 1) The Kantianism article is a good starting point, but a real article on Kantianism that include some history and some narrative tying it together, which would be a rather valuable article, would also be fairly long, which would make the Immanuel Kant article even longer, and since 2) I think that our Kant article is still lacking some exposition of Kant's philosophy, that's going to make it longer anyway. Jeremy J. Shapiro 20:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This article should be on the man, the other article on his philosophies. Not only is it important that the two are kept separate, it would eventually lead to an enormous article... which would eventually require the two be separated again. I see no good reason to merge the two whatsoever. Seegoon 21:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless you propose to complete the other one soon, it probably be better to merge them now to avoid forks. If it is later needed to divide, that's not a big deal. And a page on Kant mainly deals with his philosophy; his life wasn't that interesting, you know? Lapaz 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * disagree kantianism is not Kant.  what his thought has become and manifests today should be on its own page, linked from Kant's page. --Buridan 04:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * dissagree: Article is big enought to fork and Kantism doesn't seem to be the same thing as Kant (the creator). --CyclePat 02:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Note: These two article are both forks of each other. Delete both (just kidding) But I think you could definatelly put a small sections talking about emmanual Kant in Kantism... and vis vers. follow the article bicycle! with the history! --CyclePat 02:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. There should be an article about the man, and a seperate about the philosophy. Besides, Kant's page is already quite long. --Zoz (t) 17:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I agree, the man is far different from the philosophy. cheers, --zachjones4 10:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree Kantianism is a tradition extending over hundreds of years and interpretations go in a full circle of directions, so keeping Kant and what he wrote on one side, and the developments of his philosophy on another is extremely important.--Bora Nesic 19:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the merge template per overwhelming consensus. --Zoz (t) 21:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Coherent moral philosophy
Pope Benedict seemed to imply that Kant thought that a coherent moral philosophy was not possible without an acknowledgement of the existence of God. Did Kant think this? If so, it would seem worthy of mention on the Kant page. Eiler7 15:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe in some parts of his philosophy he says this (I don't know), but I don't think Kant thinks things like the categorical imperative require appealing to God. I could be totally wrong on this though.  FranksValli 00:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been looking at the French version of this page and it appears to mention "the existence of God" as a postulate of practical reason. Should I add something along those lines? What is the procedure for incorporating material from another version? Eiler7 20:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Kant did indeed think God's existence was necessary for morality (see ). Kant even makes a so-called "Moral argument for God" {see ). Mi kk er ... 20:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Only in Kant's early work did he dabble in any "moral argument for God." The link provided for the necessity of God for morality is BS. It is not part of his mature philosophy, in which he took many rationalists to task over this very issue. I am baffled as to how anyone can make such an argument after a thorough reading of his works. The best (and most dangerous, for his time) part of Kant's moral philosophy is that God is not required to legislate morality, rather the moral structure already exists via rational freedom, etc.. While he was certainly not an atheist, his specific beliefs were not known, and often different accounts arose from those who knew him (See Kuehn's biography for details).

? Some statements suggest morality requires existence of God, but others do not, "This proof [the moral proof of the existence of God], to which we could easily give the form of logical precision, is not trying to say that it is as necessary to assume that God exists as it is to acknowledge that the moral law is valid, so that anyone who cannot convince himself that God exists may judge himself released from the obligations that the moral law imposes. No!" Critique of Judgement. Sjjb

Some say that Kant`s Birth: April 22, 1724 (Königsberg, Germany) (Now Kaliningrad, Russia)

But he only wrote in Latin and German. He was a Philosopher. He was not a Philosopher born in Königsberg or Kaliningrad. He was just a philosopher. And he did a good job by just being a philosopher. Not so ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (22022006)


 * As might have noted, every article in every encyclopedia in the world about a person contains the person's date and place of birth and death. What's the problem? 80.138.80.50 21:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Kant was a racist
There are still those who deny it. But one only needs to have a look in his writings. http://www.ikp.uni-bonn.de/kant/suche.html Check for words like "Neger" "Race" and the like!


 * Most people of this time believed black people to be inderior: slavery was in full swing in the New World, it would have been more interesting for you to state that he wasn't a racist. Oh and Socrates probably had sex with infant boys. Doesn't mean he wasn't a great philosopher. MynameisRoB 15:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Infant??? Piepants 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Piepants

A note on the 'myth' about 'Kant's personal mannerisms'.
Let's face it -- if the best argument that can be given against the fact that Kant was a total dork is that "he remained fond of dinner parties", then maybe we shouldn't pretend to have a reason to challenge the view of Kant as a stodgy old fart.


 * Who cares about his personal attributes? Do you understand his writings? If not, then your words have no value.Lestrade 12:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Where is the Criticism of Kant?
This article lacks any information on Criticism of Kant's philosophy, there is no mention of how Ayn Rand took him to task in her various non-fiction works, there is NOTHING at all. Could someone do some research on this subject? The Fading Light 3:23, 23 April 2006


 * I was going to put a reference to Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy, but I couldn't find an appropriate place in the article.Lestrade 01:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Any article on Kant should include an account of the criticisms that have occurred since the publication of his works. These criticisms would also help to explain why he isn't widely read outside of the field of philosophy. Kant made the mistake of claiming that the laws of Newton's physics, Aristotle's logic, and Euclid's geometry were inherent in the human mind. Even though they haven't been proved wrong, these have been found incomplete. Therefore these canons, as well as his unclear Transcendental Analytic section, have resulted in his lack of readers among the non-philosophic disciplines of our time.Lestrade 19:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I put in some criticism of Kant (from WVO Quine and Ayn Rand) a while back, but it kept getting reverted. I'm pretty familiar with Rand's criticism, though I'd have to brush up on Quine's. LaszloWalrus 01:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I could see a brief comment on Quine's critique of analyticity being helpful, but Rand and Schopenhauer's critiques of Kant are generally not taken very seriously in the philosophical community, as they are both thought to involve serious misreadings of Kant's view. It would thus be inappropriate to include them here. fi99ig 17:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Has User Fi99ig actually spoken the mind of "the philosophical community"? Has User Fi99ig ever passed his eyes over a page of Rand's or Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant? If I were a gambler, I would bet that User Fi99ig is unwilling and unable to explain why the views of Rand and Schopenhauer are the result of "serious misreadings". Lestrade 17:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade


 * Lestrade, if you believe that either are taken seriously in Kant scholarship, just show me the frequent positive references in the secondary literature. Having read a fair bit of the latter, I feel confident that such references are both very infrequent and generally negative (as far as their accuracy in depicting Kant goes).  If you want to include either, the onus is on you to show their relevance and worth.  I haven't read Rand, so I'm relying on her general absence from Kant scholarship to make my point.  I did read Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant some time ago, and, to be honest, I had the impression that it tells us more about Schopenhauer than Kant.  To give a few examples, I think he misread's Kant's idealism as being a kind of psychological imposition, and I think he does not pay sufficient attention to Kant's concern with establishing the objectivity of experience -- probably because he downplays the value of the transcendental deduction.  (To be clear, I actually think Schopenhauer is a very interesting philosopher; I just don't think he provides a very accurate reading of Kant.)  But my opinion is irrelevant to this debate.  The point is that the citation record suggests that few Kant scholars find it helpful to appeal to Schopenhauer in understanding Kant. fi99ig 18:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with Lastrade about Rand, and agree with user Fi99ig, but only because Rand in general is not taken seriously within the philosophy community as a philosopher. I do agree with Lastrade on Schopenhauer, however.  Schopenhauer was a fairly important figure and his criticism's may be important if presented in a NPOV, and cited. It should not be omitted simply because of the reading of an individual user deems it unimportant.  I am familiar with user Fi99ig from many conversations, and while I find his biographical and bibliographical knowledge of Kant impressive, past conversations have shown little comprehension of the most fundamental principles of Kant, and his singular opinion on this matter does not carry an weight. Amerindianarts 22:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, setting aside the unnecessary and unproductive personal attack, I'll only point out (again) that I wasn't basing my objection to including Schopenhauer on my own reading of Kant, but rather on the small (and mostly negative) role he plays in contemporary Kant scholarship. While it's true that Schopenhauer played a historic role in the post-Hegelian 'return to Kant', most contemporary Kant scholars seem to take a dim view of his criticism of Kant.  Browsing through my own books, I see that many do not mention Schopenhauer at all, even when talking about the Analogies (a particular topic of Schopenhauer's critisicism of Kant).  Those references I do see are generally negative.  A few examples include Paul Guyer in the Cambridge Companion to Schopenhauer (pp. 113 ff.) and Henry Allison, Kant's Transcendental Idealism (pp. 254, 379-80, etc. in the revised edition).
 * I hope it's clear that I don't mean this as any sort of insult to Schopenhauer. Original thinkers like Schopenhauer are often not very good readers of other philosophers.  Heidegger, for instance, has a very interesting reading of Kant, but it is probably more revealing of Heidegger himself than of Kant.  Bertrand Russell's reading of Kant is also famously unreliable.  So it goes. fi99ig 23:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As are most readings of philosophers criticizing other philosophers. Misreadings is a given, I don't care who they are. Whether Schopenhauer was in fact a misreading or whether it is simply an opinion that it is a misreading, the misread is not the most relevant point. The point is that Schopenhauer was a German philosopher in close historical proximity to Kant, and he criticized his predecessor, misread or not.  I don't believe that misreading itself is a reliable criteria to make an evaluation that might be considered as non-NPOV when being selective in a determination of who's misreading is more adequate.  It would be a more appropriate criteria to simply state that there is not enough room in the article, or better yet, direct the user to simply mention the criticisms and link to the article on German idealism where there is room to expound. Amerindianarts 02:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A, why do you think that the relevant point in deciding about the inclusion of Schopenhauer is that he "...was a German philosopher in close historical proximity to Kant, and he criticized his predecessor"? After all, that describes almost every German philosopher of the late 17th and 18th Centuries: Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Fries, Helmholtz, Nietzsche, etc., etc.  We're surely not going to include all of their criticisms and readings of Kant, right?  So, why Schopenhauer rather than the rest?  My suggestion is that Schopenhauer's criticism would need to be of more than mere historic interest -- i.e., to have some continued importance in Kant scholarship -- to warrant inclusion.  And as far as I can tell, it doesn't.  Frankly, Schopenhauer just doesn't come up very often in works on Kant's philosophy; the criticisms of Hegel and Heidegger receive a lot more attention in the secondary literature.  So again, I ask: why Schopenhauer? fi99ig 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, or "direct the user to simply mention the criticisms and link to the article on German idealism where there is room to expound". It is Wiki policy to rather than delete edits, try to integrate them in some form.  So, why not Schopenhauer AND all the rest.  They all belong to the the period of German idealism, and this seems relevant. A word and a link will do. It is not like one was trying to do an article on objectivity in philosophy and trying to include every philosopher's take on objectivity. The very concept of objectivity itself inherently prohibits this because the selective process itself is evaluative.  It is not the case here in the subject article. I personally don't care for Guyer, but that is MY selective process.


 * I'm not being derogatory, just an opinion from past discussions, but I think your knowledge of Kant's content does not warrant the dominance you have tried to impose upon the edits of this article. I cannot understand your position on Schopenhauer while people are changing the intro by swapping one Wiki weasel word with another weasel word.  Have you come to the realization that the policy, like the philosophical distinction between fact and evaluation, is not all black and white? I don't understand your selective processes, probably because I find them highly opinionated.Amerindianarts 04:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the bottom line here is this: on the subject of Schopenhauer, you are thus far outvoted. I say "Lestrade, go for it".  Otherwise, I'm usually not one to stand in place and beat my head against a brick wall, which is what seems to be entailed when visiting this page. Amerindianarts 04:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it funny, A, that in the same reply you accuse me both of ignoring all the changes in the intro and of trying to impose my dominance over the editing of this page. Think about it.  The last claim is especially funny, as until this exchange I hadn't said a word on this page in months.  Some dominance.  But, hey, don't let the facts get in your way.  Back to the substantive question, it's my opinion that it would not be helpful to list every single historically significant criticism of Kant.  That's going to be a long list, a lot longer than the brief one I gave above.  We'll need to add Garve, Reinhold, and a whole boatload of neokantians: Lange, Adickes, Erdmann, Cohen, Vaihinger, etc. -- all of whom had as great or greater an impact on Kant scholarship than Schopenhauer.  And that just gets us to the start of the 20th Century.  What would be the point of listing all these people?  How is it going to meaningfully contribute to the main goal of this page: providing a clear and concise account of _Kant's_ thought?  And, again, if we're not going to include all of these figures, then why Schopenhauer?  Despite the usual bluster from A, I've yet to hear a positive argument for including Schopenhauer. fi99ig 05:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that I thnk there's a more general principle underlying this specific dispute. It seems to me that a lot of the pages on Wikipedia become unhelpful and hard to read because everyone wants to add their favorite points, sometimes without thinking enough of how and whether it contributes to the article as a whole.  Contrary to A, I don't think it makes for good general policy to "rather than delete edits, try to integrate them in some form."  But then, I don't think that A really believes that himself, as he has often deleted edits in the past without trying to integrate them.  Anyway, my point is that we should always be thinking about why we want to add something to the article.  In this particular case, it might be a good idea to ask what's the real value of listing all of Kant's historic critics?  Personally, I like the suggestion of Fading Light, Lestrade and LaszloWalrus that we add some more critical material, but wouldn't it be more helpful if we picked the criticisms that are viewed as most serious by Kant scholars?  I take it Quine's argument against analyticity in Two Dogmas would be a good example of an anti-Kantian view that is taken very seriously today, which is why I agreed with LaszloWalrus about including it.  I'm sure we could come up with some more -- perhaps something on naturalism would be relevant.  Or the Fregean revolution in logic and its impact on Kant's derivation of the categories from the forms of judgment.  But I don't see anything in the Kant literature that suggests Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant would be high on the list.  So, once more, why include it? fi99ig 05:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me direct you to the article on Schopenhauer in McMillan, 1967, vol. 7, p. 331-332. "...when philosophical speculation in general has been at a discount, he [Schopenhauer] has attracted little interest. Yet such neglect is undeserved, and the significance of his contribution should not be underestimated.  He realized more fully than the majority of his contemporaries the implications of the Kantian critique of traditional metaphysics, and some of the things he himself had to say about the nature of a priori knowledge have a strikingly modern ring".  This appears to be a contrast to Guyer.  These are not my words or my interpretations.  Do you think this publication and the authors have the philosophical community at heart? or not?  At this point I quote Lestrade "Has User Fi99ig actually spoken the mind of "the philosophical community"?"  Do you want more? I'll find it if need be. Amerindianarts 06:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, what I was looking for, as you know, was evidence that Schopenhauer's _criticism_ plays a significant role in contemporary _Kant_ scholarship. As you note, this is a Schopenahuer article, not Kant scholarship.  Moreover, the quotation does not say _anything_ about Schopenhauer's criticisms of Kant, which is what is at issue.  So, you've given me a quotation that is not Kant scholarship and is not on Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant.  Thanks, but I don't think that's very helpful.  Look, A, I understand that you don't like me, but be honest.  I know that you're familiar with the Kant literature.  You are surely aware that Schopenhauer doesn't come up very often.  I'm not saying that no one ever mentions him, just that he has no significant role in contemporary scholarship -- and certainly no more significance than the long list of other historic influences who are occasionally mentioned in the literature.  Frankly, I can't believe you're providing this much resistance to what seems a fairly uncontroversial point, and I can't help thinking this is just your personal antagonism toward me.  So, let me ask you directly, A: Do you really, honestly believe that Schopenhauer's criticism plays a significant role in contemporary Kant scholarship?  If so, then yes I will take you up on your offer to provide examples that are indicative of this trend.  From Kant scholars, please.  And on topic, if you don't mind. fi99ig 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Evidently, some in the community feel that it may have some significance. I am one of those who has unfortunately neglected Schopenhauer, as I think you have as well.  So, at this point, it might be better to hear from someone on Schopenhauer who plans to do the editing and know more than either of us.  Lestrade knows Schopenhauer, and might make a contribution to this discussion before I could do the research you request.  Whether or not I like you is not an issue, it's not even relevant, and you do seem to take it personally nonetheless.  I just think that the resistance you provide gives the impression that you have the final word on these issues (self-proclaimed expert?), and I can assure you that 30 years of doing Kant tells me otherwise. Like I said, I'm not one to stand in place and beat my head against the wall, and the unreasonableness encountered on this page, especially concerning such elementary points as Kant's construction of concepts, is not substantiated in any credible way.  So, let me get out my proceedings of the Kant congresses, etc, and hopefully some one who knows more than either of us can contribute here.Amerindianarts 18:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The article I cited above was written by Patrick Gardiner and is a condensed version of his book Schopenhauer. Gardiner is an English philosopher of note, and the book is endorsed by other well known philosophers (e.g.Alasdair MacIntyre).  SO, when he states that Schopenhauer "realized more fully than the majority of his contemporaries the implications of the Kantian critique of traditional metaphysics", and you counter that you wish to review the criticisms before their inclusion, I have to wonder who you think you are.  I reiterate, the resistance encountered on this page is NOT substantiated with any degree of credibility. Amerindianarts 19:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A, you're missing the point. The problem with the quotation is that it is characterizing the areas where Schopenhauer is _agreeing_ with Kant.  Schopenhauer agreed that Kant made traditional metaphysics impossible and complained that Hegel et al had illegitimately slipped back into metaphysics.  That's what the author means in referring to the "implications of the Kantian critique of traditional metaphysics."  Schopenhauer's complaint was that his contemporaries (i.e., the Hegelians, for the most part) had failed to see that this avenue of philosophical inquiry had been decisively closed off by Kant.  This has nothing to do with Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant, which concerns other features of Kant's thought.  And this is why the quotation is irrelevent to our current dispute.  There's then the further problem that even if this had been a reference to Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant, which it is not, it is not by a Kant scholar and thus would still not have been indicative of any consensus among Kant scholars.  So your use of this quotation misses the point on two counts, I'm afraid.  I'm still waiting for some actual, relevant evidence to back up all of your hostile criticism of me. fi99ig 14:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me add that I've been going through the indexes of some of the more important recent works on Kant's theoretical philosophy, and most of them do not mention Schopenhauer at all. Longuenesse (1998) doesn't mention him.  Neither do Strawson (1966), Allison (2004), Keller (1998), Kitcher (1990), Langton (1998), or Ameriks (2003).  As noted before, Guyer's references to Schopenhauer are mostly negative, as Lestrade indicates on the wiki article on Schopenhauer's Criticism of Kant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Kantian_Philosophy).  Watkins (2005) mentions Schopenhauer very briefly on pp. 238-9, but doesn't seem particularly impressed with S's criticism of Kant on causality.  I could go on, but I think the trend is already clear.  By contrast, these books do refer fairly frequently to other historic Kant interpretors and critics like Garve, Reinhold, Jacobi, Adickes, etc.  So I'm really not seeing any sign that Schopenhauer's criticism is viewed as being particularly important.  But I'm sure you'll present your long-awaited evidence soon, A. fi99ig 14:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What I am finding interesting about this debate is that while you argue about Schopenhauer and his critique of Kant you have COMPLETELY ignored Kant's other (and more vehement) critic, Ayn Rand. And before you say "oh the mainstream philosophy community ignores her" let me say this, Ayn Rand sells a HELL of a lot more books (both fiction and non-fiction) than Kant and Schopenhauer combined, and in the realm of ideas Ayn Rand has had a major impact in the areas of Economy (Alan Greenspan was one of her original students). In short, a woman who can still sell 500,000 copies per year of a book published in the early 1950's (Atlas Shrugged)) is worth paying attention too. The Fading Light 9:15, 29 April 2006


 * FL, I realize that Rand is very popular. But you would surely agree that popularity in itself is not a sure sign of worth.  That would mean that McDonalds makes great food, that Jessica Simpson is a great musician, etc.  Let's hope we never get to the point where we evaluate philosophers by their book sales.  As you probably know, Kant scholars are not a bunch of slavish devotees to Kant.  They are quite willing to say where they think he went wrong.  Indeed, Paul Guyer, one of the most prominent Kant scholar today, thinks Kant was wrong just about everywhere.  If these scholars could find anything of value in Rand's criticism of Kant, they would be happy to use it.  But they don't.  (On a side note, FL, I'm curious about your wiki profile.  How does one manage to embrace both the extreme anti-egotism of Buddhism and the extreme egotism of Rand?  I don't mean this as at all critical -- I'm just genuinely fascinated by the contrast.) fi99ig 13:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fi99ig-At this point I am basically arguing for edits I didn't intend to make, but for someone else's right to make them. If that person does not step forward with some follow through on this point, then this controversy regarding Kant and Schopenhauer may become a moot point, for now.  To put it into historical perspective, there are two modern philosophers, one stating that Schopenhauer's criticisms are a misreading, and the other stating that of all his contemporaries, Schopenhauer had the best understanding of Kant.  Since Schopenhauer, and his contemporaries, are the next generation of German philosophers, it could represent Kant's initial influences and could be important in Kant scholarship, especially concerning Schopenhauer where there seems to be a controversy, and has been largely neglected.  Simply because other modern philosophers have neglected it is no reason to be closed-minded about its possible importance, which is a very unphilosophical attitude.  The problem here, as I see it, is that the controversy may require original work, which is not allowed at Wiki.Amerindianarts 18:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Presenting the long? awaited evidence would require reading Gardiner, which I haven't done and don't have. So, don't hold your breath.Amerindianarts 18:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * fi99ing- Just because you've read something doesn't mean you automaticly believe in it (if this was the case I would be considered a Buddhist-Christian-Communist-Maoist-Neo Pagan-Objectivist-Satanist-Wiccan). While I do agree with Mrs Rand on several points (example: The Individual is more important than the State) I don't agree with everything that she taught, (an example of this is her Homophobia). What I do find rather odd is the fact that while the philosophical community has done it's best to ignore Mrs Rand, everyone one else on the planet has at least enjoyed reading her fictional works. I don't mean this as at all critical -- I'm just genuinely fascinated by the contrast. The Fading Light 2:40, 30 April 2006


 * Fading Light -- Like I said, I wasn't trying to accuse you of some sort of inconsistency -- it was just an interesting and somewhat unusual constellation of interests. Regarding Rand's Kant criticism, we can just agree to disagree about its significance.  I just wanted to make the point that popularity would not be a good reason for including it.  Perhaps we'll agree to disagree here as well. fi99ig 19:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Amerindianarts -- We may be reaching the point of diminishing returns, but I'll say at least one more thing. Your description of this dispute as coming down to there being "two modern philosophers, one stating that Schopenhauer's criticisms are a misreading, and the other stating that of all his contemporaries, Schopenhauer had the best understanding of Kant" is, once again, very misleading.  I've presented a fairly lengthy list of citations in support of my view of the lack of significance of Schopenhauer's criticism to Kant scholarship.  You've presented only one example that is not Kant scholarship and that is also off topic.  Perhaps Gardiner thinks that Schopenhauer's Kant criticism is important, perhaps he doesn't.  The point is that the quotation you supply doesn't tell us either way, since it's talking about something else entirely.  For you to then characterize this dispute as a matter of one philosopher against another is almost comical in its inaccuracy. fi99ig 19:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * fi99ing -- When your on the outside looking in, it does look like an odd grouping of interests but I have always believed that before you can argue about (or believe in) something you should at least take the time to learn about said subject. Even if it is seemingly the polar opposite of what you hold dear. The Fading Light 7:31, 30 April 2006


 * I would agree with that observation. What is really comical, even ironic, is to deem something as a "comical" "inaccuracy" when you don't know the content.  This lack of substantiated credibility is something that seems prevalent in the resistance met on this page.  I believe it represents a reign of terror that needs to be ended, but that is not something that is going to be settled on this 'talk' page.Amerindianarts 23:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A, yet again you have missed my point. What I said was inaccurate was your use of the specific Gardiner quotation to support your position.  It doesn't.  When you say that I "don't know the content," it's not exactly clear what you're referring to, but I assume you mean the rest of Gardiner's views outside this quote.  But I never claimed to know this and was explicit in saying so.  My point is that the quote _you_ provided to support _your_ position does not do so.  If Gardiner has something to say about Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant, I would be happy to hear it.  In fact, it would be fine with me if there turn out to be a lot of references to the value of Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant in the secondary literature that I had been unaware of.  I really don't care that much about this specific issue.  What does concern me is the general principle that we should be able and willing to justify the material we wish to add to the Kant page.
 * You go on to talk about my sponsoring a "reign of terror." Well, that seems a little melodramatic, doesn't it?  All I'm asking is that you provide evidence to support your claims.  In fact, I would argue that you are the one being dogmatic and unreasonable.  I'm certainly opinionated, but I've made a real effort to support my views and respond to criticism.  You, by contrast, seem unwilling to acknowledge even your obvious misstatements (like the claim that our dispute came down to one philosopher against another, when, in truth, I'd cited many sources and you had a single, off-topic quotation.)  Earlier in this discussion, you accused me of being a "self-proclaimed expert", and then in the very same sentence(!) you appeal to your "30 years of doing Kant" to dismiss my views.  Do you see the irony?  If you think I've been unfair in this discussion, why don't you supply your evidence for this claim instead of just slandering my character. fi99ig 01:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, vintage internet. Reminiscent of classic '80s Usenet.  "Why don't the so-called academic experts pay attention to Ayn Rand's trenchant philosophical insights?"  Reich, Hubbard, and the creationists would be proud.  This article does a dismal job of clearly or accurately introducing Kant's own ideas, yet the passionate intensity among the Wikipedists revolves around minor league criticisms.  The article on the solar system outrageously neglects Velikovsky, I'm sure.  Fi99ig, why waste your time with folks who are evidently incapable or unwilling to conduct a rational discussion?  Get back to your graduate studies or teaching, dude.  4.232.132.105 00:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Anon. Wrt.

Categorical Syllogism of the First Figure:
 * Major premise: All criticisms of Kant that are not cited by the philosophical community are not worth reading.
 * Minor premise: Rand's and Schopenhauer's criticisms of the Kantian philosophy are not cited by the philosophical community.
 * Conclusion: Rand's and Schopenhauer's criticisms of the Kantian philosophy are not worth reading.

However, if the major premise is not true, the conclusion is not true. How can we know whether the major premise is true? We can accept the authority of the contemporary philosophical community. On the other hand, we can read the criticisms ourselves and use our own reason and judgment.

Professor David Pear of Oxford wrote:

Professor Stefan Körner of University of Bristol explained how Schopenhauer criticized Kant for speaking about the thing-in-itself as being singular or plural when those categories apply only to phenomena.

Professor Paul Guyer of the University of Pennsylvania wrote that Schopenhauer "raised issues of enduring importance and difficulty about some of Kant's most basic assumptions and conclusions." The most noteworthy of Kant's conclusions, for Guyer, was Kant's claim that succession can only be known as causality.

The Wikipedia article Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy contains a list of criticisms that should be valuable to some researchers. Every page of the criticism contains detailed information on Kant's works. The discussions of the Schemata and the Categories alone provide information that can not be obtained elsewhere. These topics were notorious for their obscurity and I would think that any enlightenment on them should be most welcome, unless obscurity is intentionally preferred to clarity by the philosophical community.

The anonymous poster whose comments precede this had contemptuously tried to associate such Kantian criticism with the speculations of Reich, Hubbard, and Velikovsky. Such deception may discourage some people, but those who are truly interested in Kant's works may have the desire to gain knowledge regardless of such attempts to dismiss intelligent criticism. The same anonymous poster has attempted to trivialize this discussion by comparing it to "minor league" Usenet dialectics from the 1980s. I'm sure that we are missing important contributions to the understanding of Kant's philosophy because said anonymous poster prefers not to provide us with his/her clear and pertinent explanations.

If the Wikipedia article does not refer to such criticisms of the Kantian philosophy, then it will lose some informational value.Lestrade 14:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade


 * Ahhh... more vintage Randroid crankage, right down to the straight-faced use of syllogistic jargon to burnish the "more logical than the philosophers" pose. Maybe that'd work if Lestrade actually reasoned well.  Let's see: "However, if the major premise is not true, the conclusion is not true."  Oopsie!  And it's very logical, I'm sure, to attribute said major premise to me, when I nowhere asserted or implied it.  So Lestrade has nicely confirmed my actual claim above: his incompetence at reasoning makes it a waste of time to debate him.  Ta-ta, chuckles; help yourself to the last word. 4.232.123.213 00:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Yr. Anon. Wrt.

Anonymous, I am not posing as being "more logical than the philosphers." I am trying to aid in the understanding of Kant by including, in the Wikipedia article, the reference to intelligent criticisms of his work. Furthermore, isn't it presumptive of any of us to claim the title of "philosopher"? Please explain why you wrote "Oopsie." Also, I didn't attribute the major premise to you. I attributed to you the attempt to trivialize the discussion by comparing it to some dialectics that you had read on Usenet twenty years ago. Is "Ta-ta, chuckles" your way of exiting a dialogue? For the sake of young students, I hope that you are not a member of the philosophical community.Lestrade 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade


 * Lestrade, I don't see how you reject the major premise (or at least something very much like it) without violating NPOV or the rule against original research. This is an encyclopedia article.  It should reflect the consensus of the experts in the field, namely the philosophical community of Kant scholars.  Doesn't that seem reasonable to you?
 * You do cite some evidence, but the references seem off point:
 * (a) David Pear: the fact that Wittgenstein "took much of the framework of the Tractatus from Kant through Schopenhauer..." tell us nothing about the accuracy of Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant. It might tell us that Wittgenstein liked Schopenhauer's general reading of Kant, although even that's unclear.  It certainly tells us nothing about what Wittgenstein thought of Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant.  And even if it did, Wittgenstein was not and never claimed to be a Kant scholar.
 * (b) Körner: you don't supply the quotation, so I'm not in a position to evaluate it.
 * (c) Guyer: I don't see how Guyer can serve as a ringing endorsement for you, given that, as you yourself state (in your wiki article on Schop.'s criticism of Kant), Guyer's general view was that "Schopenhauer misunderstood Kant". It seems to me that the Guyer article speaks against including the Schopenhauer criticism.
 * I continue to be amazed at how much controversy this topic has stirred up. I'm all for including Kant criticism, but wouldn't it make more sense to look at the Kant scholarship and identify the criticisms that are generally viewed as most important there?  That seems like a better and more systematic method than just having people add the criticisms of whoever happen to be their personal favorite philosophers. fi99ig 14:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * WOW! All this for one 19th century Philosopher... I think we have finally found the one topic that will make even the most dry and boring philosopher foam and fume at the mouth with rage and indignation in a manner to make a political pundit proud. The Fading Light 18:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that it matters now, but here is the Minor League quotation for Fi99ig's considered evaluation:

Professor Körner was born in Czechoslovakia in 1913 and departed the Philosophical Community in 2000.Lestrade 21:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Thanks for supplying the quotation. This is the sort of thing I was looking for.  More like it would make your case. fi99ig 13:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would still be great to add a Criticism section, picking out those that are viewed as most important in the literature. Earlier in this discussion I mentioned a few candidates:
 * (a) Modern skepticism about Kant's analytic / synthetic distinction (originating with Quine's Two Dogmas)
 * (b) Naturalist challenges to Kant (that's kind of vague, as I really don't know very much about contemporary Naturalism in epistemology, but it's certainly an important movement in philosophy these days.)
 * (c) The modern revolution in logic (starting with Frege). Kant derived (in some sense of the word) the categories from the twelve tables of judgment, but there is no real equivalent in the Fregean system.  Indeed, the very idea of there being a fixed set of fundamental forms of judgment comes into question, since modern logic allows that a complete logical system can be produced from various starting points.  This leaves it unclear where the categories should come from.

We could also add the criticism just mentioned by Lestrade:
 * (d) A dilemma regarding the thing in itself. Kant has to appeal to the thing in itself to avoid a problematic idealism, but his own principles seem to make such an appeal to it impossible.  This criticism goes way back, to his contemporary Jacobi, who has the famous line: "Without the presupposition [of the "thing in itself,"] I was unable to enter into Kant's system, but with it I was unable to stay within it."

I'm sure we can together come up with some more. And let me know if you have any doubts about the importance or relevance of these four. fi99ig 13:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

citation needed
I see that in the biography section it states that a citation is needed for the claim that Joseph Green was responsible for Kant adopting a more regulated lifestyle. I have the citation, but I'm not sure how to give it the correct formatting. If someone knows how to do this, do you think you could add the following? -- M. Kuehn, Kant: A Biography, pp. 154-6. (The full citation for this work is: Kuehn, Manfred. Kant: A Biography. Cambridge University Press, 2001. ISBN 0521497043.) Thanks in advance. fi99ig 14:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I think I figured it out. Please let me know if I've made any formatting errors. fi99ig 14:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

in the section "the second formula" the saying "the ends justify the means" is offered as an interpretation. i dispute both that this is a correct interpretation and that this saying is commonly attributed to kant, as statet in the section.--83.189.41.178 00:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you.Amerindianarts 00:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported Statement?
In the article's "Belief in God" section it is asserted that "Kant stated his belief in God in the Critique of Pure Reason." I would like to request that such a statement of belief be cited. Where did Kant say that he believed in God?Lestrade 16:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Aesthetics
In the article's "Aesthetic philosophy" section, it is stated that a "judgment of taste is based on esteem for an object in itself." Kant never used the phrase "object in itself." It is also well to remember that Kant had no artistic appreciation. His Critique of Judgment was concerned only with the investigation of subjective, inner mental thoughts about beauty and purposiveness and their attribution to objective, outer objects.Lestrade 16:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Whilst Kant didn't use the term 'object-in-itself' i do believe that this is a common enough philosophical term to be included in an article about him, and best describes what I was trying to say. Also, your point about Kant's tastes in art are partially irrelevant because his aesthetic theory contained insight into the aesthetic elements of nature: natural beauty, and beside this, he spoke explicitly about the role of beauty in art and the sublime, which could manifest itself in fine art when combined with the beautiful. Whilst he has little to offer in the way of a critique of art, he has a lot to say about the nature of art in general and the mental responses that art brings about. To say that Kant's emphasis was on "the investigation of subjective, inner mental thoughts about beauty and purposiveness and their attribution to objective, outer objects" is just another way of defining his aesthetic theoryMynameisRoB 17:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms
This page badly needs some criticisms: it has been up for so long and Kant is so important that I can't believe this has yet to be done. I could start the ball rolling but I'm not aware of many so I wouldn't want to start a whole section with only my own knowledge. Can anyone list some or begin the section? I can think of Benjamin Constant's argument from the essay 'France' that the categorical imperitive treats someone who lies to an axe murderer about the location of his next victim as morally wrong (and Kant's subsequent response that yes, it is our moral duty not to lie even in situations such as these), but not many more than this. MynameisRoB 18:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh... You didn't happen to notice the fifty foot long debate just above your head did you?! Well anyways Kant's biggest (and most vehement) critic is none other than Ayn Rand who consider Kant to be "a Monster" and that his philosophy allowed for the creation of Nazism and all other forms of Totalitarian government. The Fading Light 22:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hah yep, I noticed, but still it has yet to be done. Now there are a few on this page so I guess whoever has time should start it off. MynameisRoB 10:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely needs a criticism section. Rand seems like a great way to start one off. I'm not very familiar with Rand, but I'll read up on it and try to put something in. RJII 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Including Rand's criticism's in the article is going to be met with considerable resistance. There are plenty of major philosophers (and Rand isn't one of them) who have made important criticisms of Kant (some cited above) and there should be plenty of material to research without resorting to authors who you have grossly distorted and misunderstood Kant's views as Rand has. Anyone with a reasonable understanding of Kant can see that Rand's criticisms are emotive and lack understanding of Kant's philosophy. Rand is nothing more than a finger-pointer, and is not well received as an earnest "philosopher" of substance.Amerindianarts 06:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I'm putting her in. That her criticism will be met with resistance leads me to believe that her criticism is a real threat, and therefore all the more important that it be included. RJII 15:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not that it is a threat. It has no basis in reality as does your notions of putting it in. You can make a better argument that the actions of the Catholic Church in the Sixth century are responsible for totalitarianism.  To blame the culmination of Nazism with Hitler and his criminal cronies on Kant is absolute fantasy.  People are always looking to blame such hideousness on something-You can also blame today's violence on video games and TV, so you have to ask "What TV shows did Jack the Ripper watch".  Excuse me, but I need to go over to the Wiki biography for Abe Lincoln and make some edits.  He may have raised the level of consciousness in this country regarding slavery, but you know the bastard is responsible for the murder of the civil rights workers in Mississippi, the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., the rise of the militants and all the riots and civil unrest of the past decades.  If you insert it, you are proposing the same type of bullshit reasoning, as well as displaying your own lack of understanding and appreciation for Kant.  The only threat is users looking to litter the article with trash. Amerindianarts 17:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like you're thinking about the personal attacks by Rand on Kant. That's not what I had in mind. That's irrelevant. I was thinking about her philosophical arguments against the philosophy of Kant. It's just philosophy --nothing to get worked up about. RJII 02:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't consider it getting "worked up". I also don't understand "It's just philosophy". Would such a casual attitude be reflected in your edits, perhaps? We'll see.Amerindianarts 04:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A criticism doesn't have to be valid to be listed as a criticsm... by this logic we wouldn't have a section on Descartes seeing as most of his philosophy has been subsequently invalidated (or indeed Kant)... if the criticism is one of Kant then it is valid, Rand is a well known name and notorious for her criticisms of Kant. We odn't have to partronise users by not including what we feel is invalid, they can judge that for themselves MynameisRoB 14:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There is also the concern, which has been cited by others on this page, that Rand is not commonly accepted by the philosophical community as a philosopher. Certainly Rand is a well known author, but the criticisms of Kant should be limited to philosophers of note which have been commonly recognized by other philosophers. Rand does have a following, but in some circles it is viewed as having a "cult" status. History has shown that sometimes authors have not been immediately accepted by the philosophical community as philosophers (in recent history e.g. Sartre and Heidegger) and history may eventually make liars out those that don't accept Rand as a philosopher. At this point in history however, I would agree that the verdict is still out on Rand, and including her criticisms as legitimate philosophy is POV. One could also argue that my viewpoint and others in agreement are asserting POV, but this is still problematic as to what is NPOV. If it is agreed that criticisms of Kant should be limited to recognized philosophers, then the inclusion of Rand's comments should be considered as POV. Amerindianarts 14:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see why they should be... a non-philosopher can still give a phlosophical criticism. But then I guess we can have any old Joe listed as being a critic, so maybe you're right. I think though, considering that criticism of Kant is a large and well-known part of her work, she should be considered, even only a line or two would be a good idea MynameisRoB 15:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It used to be true that Rand wasn't recognized in the academic community, but I think those days are gone. I don't think such an objection works anymore. I think at this point it's become a myth that she's not recognized in academia. RJII 18:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that might be doable. There was some concern (above) about the inclusion of a section on criticisms, e.g. length of the section and subsequently the article, discerning the criticisms by their importance, etc. User Lestrade handled the Schopenhauer situation by integrating a sentence in the section on Ethics and linking to a page he created on Schopenhauer's criticisms of Kant. Whether this page should be integrated with the Schopenhauer article is another matter, but for the sake of brevity and to eliminate the task of gauging the importance of the criticisms, the new section, if created, should maybe integrate much of its content by linking to the criticisms in their respective articles, e.g. a list of references entitled "Criticisms of Kant" linking to other Wiki articles or books. This would not entirely eliminate the concern for POV in regard to who should be on the list, but it would certainly eliminate some concerns and not add length to an already lengthy article. Amerindianarts 15:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

After doing a quick read of some Randian epistemology, this is what I'm getting: Rand believed that if an object has an effect upon the senses, then that effect upon the senses gives us knowledge about the object itself. At the most basic level, it informs us that that object is of a particular character such that when it interacts with one's sense organs it causes a particular sensation; and, that is knowledge about a quality of the object itself --it is causing or has the potentiality of causing X when it interacts with Y. So, Kant was wrong to think that the sense information does not give a direct and accurate representation of the characteristics external reality. And, of course once you have that information about the object in question, you could build your knowledge of it by putting your sense organs in more contact with the object and conducting higher level operations with reason and science with feedback that comes in the form of sense information. We can know "things in themselves." We don't just have knowledge of their affect upon our senses, but we know that they DO have, or have the capacity to inflict, particular effects upon our senses. And, that is knowledge of attributes of the objects. Our sense organs give us direct perception of reality. Makes sense to me. RJII 18:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, RJII, my own impression as a philosophy grad student is that Rand is taken seriously by _almost_ no one in the field. Most schools have Objectivist clubs that have lectures from time to time, but the philosophy crowd tends to have nothing to do with them.  As for the specific criticism you mention, Kant would likely say that Rand is confusing the empirical and the transcendental.  At the empirical level, Kant has no problem talking about our being affected by objects and knowing them.  It's only from the transcendental perspective that we fail to have knowledge of things in themselves.  (This is why Kant calls himself a transcendental idealist, but an empirical realist.)  Kant has various arguments for the transcendental claim (and for the claim that the kind of scenario Rand is envisioning misses his transcendental perspective).  For Rand's criticism to have any value here, she would need to address the details of these arguments.  As it stands, on your presentation of it, she is simply asserting the opposing view.  That might be fine on the Rand page, but I don't yet see how it's helpful as a criticism on the Kant page.  With all that said, if you really want to include Rand's criticism, I would second Amerindianarts' helpful suggestion of a compromise: viz., that we have a brief list of criticisms linking to outside articles.  You could then put up a page called 'Rand's criticism of Kant' and link to that.  How does that sound? fi99ig 00:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if Rand is "taken seriously be _almost_ no one in the field" than that's probably what's good about her. Academic philosophy has produced almost nothing of any practical value or application. It has been basically worthless --scholars playing with ideas for no apparent reason. If philosophy needs anything, it's an injection of ideas from someone outside of the establishment who is politically incorrect. The great thing about Wikipedia is that the academic authorities can't control it (thank God). Hence, ideas that have been ignored, censored, or ridiculed by self-appointed guardians of the status quo can be brought to light and the ideas of the establishment challenged. RJII 04:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fi99ig's take on the Rand criticisms. The statement "So, Kant was wrong to think that the sense information does not give a direct and accurate representation of the characteristics external reality" is misleading and not an accurate portrayal of Kant's position.Amerindianarts 08:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * RJII, I believe the Athenians made the same sort of complaints about Socrates. The effects of philosophical work on the greater society often take a long time to show up, but that doesn't mean they're not significant.  (E.g., think of the way Popper's work has transformed our view of science.)  And what's all this talk about academic philosophers as 'politically correct' and 'guardians of the status quo'?  Have you ever actually spent any time with them?  My God, they disagree with each other constantly.  Presenting a paper at a conference can be pretty nerve-wracking, because one knows that one will be challenged from every angle -- and far more ruthlessly than in _any_ other department that I'm aware of.  I suggest you get your facts straight before you make wild claims like the above. fi99ig 12:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Epistemology Addition
I've removed the long section added by Bsender, for several reasons: (1) Bsender should have sought a degree of consensus on the discussion page before making such a lengthy addition -- it's taken a fair degree of negotiation just to get where we are now. (2) The user made no attempt to fit his addition into the context of the page. In fact, I suspect that it's a cut and paste of a class paper -- note the reference to "this essay" early on. (3) The material is far too detailed for this page, covering specifics of the A-deduction. Whatever is useful in this material would be better off in the Critique of Pure Reason page, assuming it is edited to fit the existing context there.

Please let me know if anyone disagrees with my decision and would like to defend the addition. fi99ig 21:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC) I left a message on Bsender's talkpage explaining the same reasons stated by Fi99ig, encouraging the user to do something to clean it up with a warning that the edit won't last. I guess they didn't act fast enough. I agree with the removal.Amerindianarts 22:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Kant and religion
Would it be unjust to place Kant in the category of Deist thinkers? (That is, was Kant a deist?)

Belief in God, part II
This has been addressed here before. Perhaps someone has some feedback. I tagged this section in the article for a better citation. In the argument from morality Kant states that the Idea of God can only be proven through this argument, but only for practical intent or concerns. His terms are "as if". He uses these same terms in the Critique of Pure Reason in several places, more in regard to the Unconditioned. So, I cannot find a definitve statement professing a belief in the existence of God, nor do I ever remember reading it as inferred in the section. I take Kant's position as prescriptive, and the section implies a definitive description, as does the article on the Argument from Morality that is linked to. I think the section either needs to be deleted, or rewritten with clarification. The section in the article does not clarify prescription vs. descriptive, and this can be seen as a confusion of his use of Existenz and Dasein. The article also links to an argument from morality which is also a bit confused on Kant's relation of happiness and virtue in the summum bonum.Amerindianarts 03:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

POV tag
Since no one has bothered to place any real critique about Kant's "philosophy" in the article I'm going to place an POV tag on it until this love letter of an article has a real balancing force. The Fading Light 15:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is a neutral summary of Kant's philosophy. The "problem" is that very little worthwhile criticism of Kant has been produced by the editors who are complaining of its absence, and what little has been put forward hasn't been added to the article.  There is plenty out there, from authors with more credibility than Ayn Rand, so why not find some and put it in the article, if you're so concerned?  "This article doesn't reflect Ayn Rand's view of Kant" won't cut it - Rand is not a credible critic of Kant.  --ajn (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I consider Ayn Rand to be a more credible philosopher than a man who thought that thinking doesn't require logic and reason.


 * This, frankly, is why nobody takes Rand seriously as a philosopher. She read the title of the Critique of Pure Reason and didn't even understand that.  The idea that Kant didn't think that reason is important is utterly ludicrous - Rand and her followers are the only people who believe it.  --ajn (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: By the way, there is clearly a POV dispute about this article since there are two Criticism pages alone on the talk page about problems in the article. And currently you are arguing with me about the article so there is clearly a problem with it. The Fading Light 19:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of disciples of Ayn Rand who object to the fact that the article doesn't describe Kant as a monster. That's not enough to indicate there are problems with the article.  --ajn (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Schopenhauer is a good example of a philosopher who isn't a Randroid but doesn't buy into Kantian bullcrap. While he is included in seperate article about a book he wrote on Kant's "philosophy" (if you use the term VERY loosely) there is no real mention of critique about Kant and his ideas anywhere in this particular article. I consider that to be a SERIOUS problem, don't you? The Fading Light 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to know anything about Schopenhauer's attitude to Kant either. He criticised Kant in the true sense of the word - he disagreed with much of what Kant proposed, but he also agreed with much of it.  He's also an odd philosopher to cite if you are (laughably) accusing Kant of devaluing logic and reason.  --ajn (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with ajn. Several problems were raised with the inclusion of Ayn Rand's criticisms, and Fading Light has never responded directly to them.  If he really wants to include her criticism, he should address our objections.  It also seems to me that the vast majority of the article is simply descriptive.  Fading_Light, perhaps you could point out the specific passages that make it a "love letter" to Kant.  Having said that, I agree that there should be a section covering the most influential criticisms.  Rand's do not belong on this list, for the reasons I and others gave earlier, but I did make several suggestions earlier on that might be more appropriate.  Here they are again:
 * (a) Modern skepticism about Kant's analytic / synthetic distinction (originating with Quine's Two Dogmas)
 * (b) Naturalist challenges to Kant (that's kind of vague, as I really don't know very much about contemporary Naturalism in epistemology, but it's certainly an important movement in philosophy these days.)
 * (c) The modern revolution in logic (starting with Frege). Kant derived (in some sense of the word) the categories from the twelve tables of judgment, but there is no real equivalent in the Fregean system. Indeed, the very idea of there being a fixed set of fundamental forms of judgment comes into question, since modern logic allows that a complete logical system can be produced from various starting points. This leaves it unclear where the categories should come from.
 * (d) A dilemma regarding the thing in itself. Kant has to appeal to the thing in itself to avoid a problematic idealism, but his own principles seem to make such an appeal to it impossible. This criticism goes way back, to his contemporary Jacobi, who has the famous line: "Without the presupposition [of the "thing in itself,"] I was unable to enter into Kant's system, but with it I was unable to stay within it."
 * Since this is a touchy topic here, I'll await feedback before adding them to the page. If anyone has further suggestions, let's compile and discuss them here and finally get this criticism section going. fi99ig 20:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article tagged as POV?? Because one Rand advocate has decided that the absense of a non-philosopher's criticisms (criticisms which have no real meaning in academia) creates POV and is now malcontent? One individual? The article may need a criticisms section but its absense does not mean that the current description is POV. A criticism,s section, if not done carefully will create POV, especially if criticisms are from authors such as Rand who don't have an inkling of what Kant was all about.Amerindianarts 22:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

POV has been reverted again. A POV tag should come from a user who has a neutral point of view and I doubt the motives of the user who inserted the tag. Amerindianarts 23:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I REALLY hate to break this to you Amerindianarts but I am not an Objectivist (in the literal sense), I am merely a fan of Ayn Rand's work, on a personal note I consider myself to be a combination Libertarian-Objectivist (since the current leadership of the Objectivist movement seem to be more interested in sucking up to the Republican Party than promoting true Objectivist theory). As for someone with a neutral point of view it appears that you lack one also (since you seem to be more interested in protecting Kant's quote-un-quote "Reputation" than having an article that presents all viewpoints). The Fading Light 02:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I really HATE to break this to you Fading Light, but it has nothing to do with protecting Kant's image. The article is descriptive and the lack of a criticisms section is not cause to tag the article. I am in favor a criticism section, but I also favor the current article as adequately neutral according to Wiki standards. The are several users monitoring this article keeping it clean and I think your concerns will evntually be addressed without taking the extreme measure you propose. If there are items of content you think should be challenged, then do so.Amerindianarts 03:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think not having any criticism of his philosophy is a good reason have a POV tag on an article like this. RJII 03:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know what is meant by "an article like this". If an article adequately and neutrally describes the bio and the content of their philosophy, how does the lack of other's criticisms constitute a POV article? The fact that someone disagrees or is critical of another's writing or finds fault in another's work has nothing to do with an adequate description of what that person thought, wrote, or lived. If anything, criticisms can distort the content of someone's philosophy. Criticism is a secondary source of material. It gives added value to an objective descriptionAmerindianarts 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree with you. RJII 04:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that I am in favor of the section in question. I just don't think its absense is reason for POV. If and when it is created, it does need to be closely monitored.Amerindianarts 04:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Since FL has yet to substantiate his charges or respond to previous criticism (or do anything, really, beyond slurring the contributors to this page), I don't see why we should take his complaint seriously.  I would still support our adding the criticisms section soon.  Any further suggestions for content? fi99ig 04:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What criticism? All you have done is yell at me that "Ayn Rand isn't a credible philosopher because she doesn't support our ideas" and all but called me a "Randroid". I don't see any reason to take any of you seriously whatsoever since you all have admitted that this article isn't neutral because it offers not criticism of Kant, period. The Fading Light 13:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see. You've been unwilling to provide any evidence of Rand's credibility or competence as a Kant critic.  You never responded to the objection that Rand's popularity is no evidence of her worth in this regard.  You have yet to point out the passages that make this a 'love letter' to Kant.  You have not addressed the related points that an article can be ok without a criticism section if it is merely descriptive in character, and that this article is pretty much entirely descriptive and non-evaluative in character.  In the process, you have managed to repeatedly mischaracterize various people's views (as in the quotation in the above paragraph, which is unrelated to anything we have said re: Rand).  You have falsely accused us of merely yelling at you and not offering criticisms of your position, when we have given various specific objections to your proposals.  And you have also managed to make a few incredibly ignorant claims about Kant which leave the impression that you have never read him at all.  For instance, you refer to Kant as "a man who thought that thinking doesn't require logic and reason."  That's just stupid.  The categories, which Kant believes are valid of all our cognitive activity, are based on the forms of logical judgment, so logic is central to his account.  Reason also plays a key role in all of Kant's philosophy.  The book is called a 'critique' of reason not because he is arguing against it but because it involves reason evaluating itself to determine the bounds of its appropriate use.  He's certainly not anti-rational by any means.  In fact, his ethics is often accused of being excessively rationalistic.  This is all so incredibly obvious that I can only conclude you have no idea what you're talking about.  I'm so tired of blowhards like you who want to get their way without actually bothering to 'defend' their views. fi99ig 15:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Content is the tricky part. Screening and discussing what should be included can be cumbersome for some of us with other duties that are being neglected by spending so much time on talk pages.  Hopefully the addition of criticism would quell some of the considerable vandalism and the hate mail from users such as Fading Light (who is it that stated "you all have admitted that this article isn't neutral"?, not only have you not responded but it appears you are not reading the conversation with any attention.)  Points to consider:


 * Ideally, criticisms of Kant should be integrated within sections and relevant to the title of that section. If there is a section on "criticisms", it should be limited to major, credible figures in philosophy, perhaps listing titles of publications that can be considered as works critical of Kant, or works with a criticism that is considered as important within the philosophy community.
 * Entries referring to "racism" should be deleted-period. Everybody in the eighteenth century was a racist by modern standards-it lacks credibility, and is POV.  The same for references to "atheism".  There is no foundation for the accusation, and criticisms referencing any such view should be worded accordingly. Criticisms of Kant in regard to such issues should be directed as criticisms of the e.g. Anthropology, etc.


 * The criticisms must be credible, that is, based on an actual understanding of Kant's work. Rand, for example, might be referred to as a critic of Kant, but I see anything more specific or explanatory as creating a distorted picture that would have to be neutralized by a counter explanation that explains Rand's lack of familiarity with Kant.Amerindianarts 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Kant's religious beliefs
I have been asked to explain my deletion of several paragraphs here, as if upon reading it it requires explanation. Entry is quite illiterate in regard to spelling and grammar. Some parts may need citation and strike me as not NPOV. It is hard to take an edit seriously when the author is too lazy to consult a dictionary or do a spell check. If anybody wants to reinsert it again, they might try proofing it.

To be more precise: The use of the phrases "created in the mind of man" and "and not immanent through ontological experience" are not consistent with the edit's use of the term "transcendent" in that there may be some confusion here on Kant's distinction between the terms "transcendent" and "transcendental". That Kant distinguished the two is evident, but the distinction can also be subject to interpretation, creating a POV entry. The edit should also distinguish between and address the purported change of Kant's position between earlier and later works, most notable One Possible and Basis for... and the Critique of Pure Reason. The third paragraph is questionable NPOV. The entry is also remotely familiar to some secondary source I once read in which case it needs to be footnoted, and makes the entry all the more ironical considering the massive spelling errors. Amerindianarts 18:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Put something about his mention of summum bonnum implying a God, through his ethical philosophy thing he ends up with the need for God, perhaps indicative of his religious beliefs. Plebmonk 01:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous beliefs
Some of this recent edition is good, but the last three paragraphs have serious problems with NPOV and possible citations. Amerindianarts 00:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: edit by user Spinoza 11111-I edited out what was not NPOV and uncited bull and condensed to a single paragraph. I'm still concerned that this last paragraph may not really be an "erronoeus belief" and is misplaced in this section. Amerindianarts 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is in world-philosophical terms an erroneous belief that Kant is "unreadable". The Goethe conversations are in the recent biography I cited.Spinoza1111 07:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As to "uncited bull", I refer you to the fable of the forest and the trees. Narrowness of sources is a qualification only for jury members.Spinoza1111 07:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It stands as "uncited bull". Highly opinionated and loaded with Wiki weasel words. The purpose here is encyclopedic entries and this conversation was started on this page because that is what this is- a jury room. Any other users reading the edits and these remarks are free to either agree or disagree with the verdict. Amerindianarts 13:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the remaining paragraph you appear to be stating that Blanshard and Keuhn and stating that Kant was/is unreadable, and that this is an "erronoeus belief". What type of opinionated encyclopedic reporting is this?? Are you such an expert that you can disagree with these two Kant scholars and consider it an encyclopedic entry? After this consideration I am removing that paragraph as well.Amerindianarts 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanshard did not believe Kant to be unreadable, but he didn't like Kant's style, and, following the publication of his views, the teaching of Kant declined in American universities because many incompetent academics erroneously believed Kant to be unreadable. I am reverting.Spinoza1111 22:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is still your opinion in the face of considerable scholarly opposition, especially in the opening statement and because you have made it a new section. Several uncited sentences and a reference to Ayn Rand as a philosopher need verification. You have proposed in your sentences claims that are as stated, your opinion. It won't last. I guarantee it. Amerindianarts 23:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to edit most of the work done by Dr. Shapiro who is a more reliable expect than yourself, unless you can provide credentials, it just isn't going to happen. Amerindianarts 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think both sides needs to dialed down the rhetoric -- certainly a more charitable attitude that assumes good faith is called for here.

That being said, I think both sides have substantively correct points. That Blanshard (who I have never heard of) and Keuhn say Kant is unreadable does not make it so. But, as an encyclopedia that eschews original research, we need to find contrary authoritative sources to establish this point. This shouldn't be too hard, and given a few hours, I might do just that.

That Ayn Rand isn't really a philosopher is already alluded to in also calling her a cult figure, but I think the point is well taken. It does strike of NPOV. Still, there is something interesting and substantive here that ought to be included: given her rather famous rejection (out of hand) of Kant's project in its entirety, to point to her disdain for his style as one of her reasons is insightful (especially given the other cited opinions. But, again, only if we can find a source for this! Li3crmp 00:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That should work with proper (unlike the recent edits) sourcing. The majority of this article was written by Dr. Shapiro, and user Spinoza1111 is attempting to make massive edits to his work-not going to happen. [don't forget to sign your comments!]

Fair enough -- but this is wiki. The point is that anyone can and should edit entries as they think they need to be improved. One should not stifle this, even if the improvments need, in turn, to be improved (with proper sourcing) or even reverted. Li3crmp 00:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanshard was an American philosopher (see Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1973 for his article), and Keuhn was a major biographer of Kant. That they can be wrong is true, but Spinoza based his claim on his own opinion. He has also attempted massive deletions of Shapiro's work. There are experts, and then there are those who are not. Amerindianarts 00:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am actually spot-rereading the Keuhn biography as I work on my dissertation on Kant -- so, yeah, I understand the difference between expert and novice. But wikipedia is not an encyclopedia written by invited experts; it is a collaborative effort to which anyone might contribute (even a novice). Massive deletions of Shapiro's contributions probably ought to be reverted: but not merely because of his expertise. It is entirely possible that a novice will improve on an expert’s contributions. That the deletions were not warranted and did not improve the article (regardless of whose material was deleted) ought to be the point.


 * It was the point. I thought that point was clear and you missed it, but I may have been mistaken. Amerindianarts 18:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think Spinoza1111's basic point re Blanshard/Keuhn assertions of Kant being difficult reading were an attempt at making the article *more* NPOV rather than less. Spinoza1111 clarifies comments that might seem to support the oft held opinion that Kant is difficult to read at best and probably obscure to the point of being incoherent. Spinoza1111’s point, I take it, is that these really are more cautious comments than that, comments meant to be strictly about the difficulty of Kant's style. Ideally, this clarification might be followed up by other citations that support this or even make the further point (as Keuhn and others do) that other Kant works were taken at the time and are even now seen as much more elegant and clear. Perhaps others (Wood?) can be cited that (rightly) attribute the difficulty of the Critical works to their being meant for a particular, intended audience, that even then, the subject matter and approach is especially difficult and unfamiliar, that it is operating at the level of extreme abstraction, that the project is architectonic in nature, etc. Li3crmp 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's funny because his edits certainly were not NPOV. Again, my major point. He was given the benefit of the doubt in the process of editing prior to editing foolishly and given the chance to rectify, which he didn't.Amerindianarts 18:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is important and has been simplified and restored.Spinoza1111 09:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wish to dispute Blanshard and Kuehn, you need a source other than yourself. Period. I will also comment on their comments, which refer to the original German text. English translators have eased this problem and at times may have foregone transliterality,  So, I ask, are you basing your opinion on English readings, or are you reading the original German text??Amerindianarts 09:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Chill, and review the simple paragraph I have rewritten and reinserted. I think we can agree that it is an "erroneous belief" to say like Rand that Kant is unreadable because you Kant (and did not in fact) read him...in EITHER English or German. I am certain that there are a lot of contributors here who haven't read Kant even in their own language, but are famliar with bonehead surveys, and let me alarm you: if they have NPOV insights based on secondary sources, and the wikipedia community accepts them as true, they need to be welcomed here.

I have read the Kritik in English, and only quite selectively in German. How bout choo?

But, we're all familiar with the bitter and prematurely aged former graduate student who's read ALL of Milton, who fucking hates Milton and who works as a sysadmin for a bank while going mad, whose opinions of Milton were based on academic politics (not the "fashionable variety", an ignuus fatuus, but the real variety) and whose very closeness and familiarity with "original sources" means his mind is closed to new insights. Dickens lampooned the lawyer who reads nothing but Jarndyce in Bleak House and there is a parallel phenomenon in philosophy.

After you review and improve the Erroneous Belief paragraph, son, mosey on over to Influence and have at my attempt to make this section less boneheaded. Be bold, but don't let your authoritarian tendency get your panty hose in a tangle.

I look forward to further conversation with you, Mr. Amerindianarts.Spinoza1111 10:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"If you wish to dispute Blanshard and Kuehn, you need a source other than yourself. Period."

Wow, what a self-contradiction, and posed with such an in my face authoritarianism. "If you wish to dispute the texts you have introduced and I don't know about, you need a source other than yourself, you little weasel".

This reduces to "you can't introduce a new source on your own unless you have read it uncritically".

This reduces to "get outa here because I say so".

I didn't "dispute" Blanshard. I said, truthfully, that he had a low opinion of Kant's style while not saying if I have a high opinion. I said he might be an example of erroneous belief.

It is an erroneous belief on the face of it to declare Kant unreadable without reading him for yourself and this is why the issue belongs in Erroneous Beliefs, especially as compared with trivia about whether Kant was a Regular Guy, or what.Spinoza1111 10:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"You are trying to edit most of the work done by Dr. Shapiro who is a more reliable expect than yourself, unless you can provide credentials, it just isn't going to happen."

I have a Master's degree. In Science! - Ask Mister Science, Duck's Breath Mystery Theater

Mister Amerindianarts, kemo sabe, you are here in direct violation of the wikipedia disrespect for credentialism. Credentials are great insofar as they, as was there purpose in the French revolution, open careers to talents. But to ask for them here violates the rules.Spinoza1111 10:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I really can't make any sense of your comments above and find some of them contemptuous and inappropriate to Wiki. And I don't care if you wish to dispute the text.  It doesn't conform to Wiki policy for NPOV, and is not encyclopedic.  It must be verifiable-not by your personal opinion.  I don't care if you have a Master's in Science.

The only contempt I have is for the dog in office. If it's "appropriate" for you to talk about "readers" "laughing at" contributions, to pretend to speak for the illdefined herd, then it's appropriate for me to have contempt for your abuse of wikipedia and to express it.Spinoza1111 11:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your improvement to influences is not an improvement. "very important all the same" is a dangling appendage and the reader cannot tell to what it is referring. It disrupts the continuity of the sentence.  What is important? The knowledge arrive at or the process referred to?? Very ambiguous edit.  "Very" is also a Wiki weasel word.  You need to check out Wiki's policy for weasel words.  Clarification or deletion-your choice.

I don't need any advice from you on literary style. You may have good advice, but I doubt it since you seem to be engaged in a campaign to establish your unwanted authority. Let's here from somebody else, kemo sabe.Spinoza1111 11:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The paragraph in "Errononeos belief" is still your opinion, but rather than delete it we are going to conform to the WikiProject for this article regarding citation and we can leave for awhile so readers can laugh at it. It has several places that need citation and the style is worse than that alledged for Kant. You are still stating that in your opinion it is an erroneous belief. I will give you a little while to source it,clean it up, and provide a reliable source that Kant's style was difficult is an erroneous belief.  It must have a source stating this is an erroneous belief, other than you. Otherwise it is gone.  For notation style refer to the changes I have made for the sections on Morality, and Aesthetics.  Before long the entire article will be well sourced, and new additions are not going to be allowed that are not.  This not my project-it is a Wiki thing (see tag at header).  Amerindianarts 11:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Citation" is your weasel word. If you knew Kant, you'd be aware of his popular work including his phamplet on the earthquake and "on the old saw", and they are informally cited in the original text. Your spewing tags is vandalism, kemo sabe.Spinoza1111 11:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know Kant, and have the credentials, but I'm not inclined to justify or enumerate them to you. Dispite the fact that your position may be true, according to Wiki policy it must be verifiable by a reputable source, and a personal opinion or common knowledge does not qualify.  The paragraph was edited, but it still lacks this quality-verifiabilty.  And this has nothing to do with my knowledge of Kant, but simply good editing according Wiki.  Amerindianarts 20:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You both need to stop this juvenile pissing contest. Amerindianarts is right to want this sourced; but putting a 'cite tag' on every sentence just makes Amerindianarts look like an ass. Spinoza1111 is bringing up an interesting and substantive point re the perception of Kant's style and how it is taken both in the history of philosophy and by hundreds of philosophy students every term. While Spinoza1111 does need to cite some source to back up this claim, I take it he is under no extra burden to show his expertise nor any extra obligation to show why he 'dares' to edit Dr. Shapiro's work. And he certainly does not need to cite every sentence!

Now, neither of you are playing nice -- and you both have your points. Stop the name calling and collaborate. Ideally you both could find sources to support or rebut Spinoza1111's claims. Neither of you need to resort to name calling and you both can play nice.

As it stand you are both in violation of these and other policies and are, therefore, on notice. My next step will be to refer this to mediation. After that, arbitration. I trust it will not come to that.

Grow up, be civil, follow the categorical imperative, and act with a good will. Li3crmp 14:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added some citations and rewrote some of the offending text. I'm not satisfied with it and would rather have used other sources (I just used the biography on hand, the one I'm currently reading). I welcome other or better citations and examples. Also, I'm not sure this does justice to the important point that even the critiques are not as bad as all that and any difficulty with them ought properly to be attributed to its subject matter, philosophically motivated methodology, etc. I'll keep looking fo such sources.... Li3crmp 17:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You did a better job than the previuos editor, and if I want to put a fact tag on every clause to see that it is done, I will. The paragraph was inane. As for acting according to good will, I don't think you read the above conversation.  He was given the chance to rectify the edit but resorted no name calling, etc.  I acted according to Wiki policy-as if I need to justify my actions to you. Amerindianarts 18:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Re adding a fact tag to every caluse, cf. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Li3crmp 20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Re Reading the above discusion, I did read it, and take it from an uninvolved 3rd party who has tried to be fair and impartial here, though you had many a point to rightly make, you were being kind of a dick about it. Just saying, you'll get more flies with honey than vinegar and all that. Li3crmp 20:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catchin' the spelling mistakes. That's embarrassing ;)  I do think conceding that the material is abstruse is a way of explaining why his style might be taken to be problematic.  But, perhaps you've a better way to put it? Li3crmp 20:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been looking for a better word. It would be nice to get further input, but past monitors of this article seem to be on extended vacations.  RE: "looks like" is not explicit name calling, but looking like an "ass" and "dick" contradict your own good advice and prescription to "be nice."Amerindianarts 20:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, the old paradox of being a dick by asking someone to not be a dick.... Li3crmp 20:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, quoting the article you cited. "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly. It is also an assumption of bad faith to cite this policy when Don't be dense is sufficient (See that page for advice on citing it)."

Great job of editing, guys, in what was erroneous beliefs and is now popular misconceptions. My specific wording and cites don't matter as long as we identify the misconception that Kant is "unreadable" while clarifying him as difficult.Spinoza1111 22:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Morality
I have Tried to conform to requests for proper inline sourcing (see Wiki tag above), using a single translation.Amerindianarts 00:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary, not Influence
I just cut this text from the Influence section; it might better belong in another section, once someone's edited it for English-language style:

Kant's idea of "critique" was to examine the legitimate scope of the mind or of knowledge. In this regard the "critique of pure reason", which was also the title of his most important work (see below and Critique of Pure Reason), meant examining what certain and legitimate knowledge human beings could arrive at simply by thinking about things independently of experience and perception, with his conclusion being: not much, but nonetheless important.

According to Kant, most philosophers before him drew conclusions about the nature of the universe, of God, or of the soul by thinking about them in "a priori" fashion, i.e. thinking on purely logical grounds using the tools of ordinary logic. For this sort of thinking it must be the case that God or the universe is this way or that way, because it makes sense logically. But, in the history of philosophy, for every philosophical theory that God or the universe or the mind must be one way, there is another theory stating that they must be precisely the opposite way. Kant referred to this situation as the "dialectic of pure reason". That is, it was an inevitable consequence of trying to arrive at knowledge on purely logical grounds independently of experience or of scientific knowledge based on the evidence of the senses. For Kant, this entire style of pursuing knowledge was bankrupt and must be abandoned, but NOT in favor of science masquerading as philosophy. According to Kant, philosophy must henceforth operate within the narrow "limits of pure reason" and recognize that most positive knowledge could come only through the sciences based on sense perception and not through metaphysics, which was about things of which we could never have direct sense perception.