Talk:Kingdom of Ends

Everything this article says is more or less true, but it could do a better job of tying the ideas together, and explaining them to the uninitated reader. ⟳ ausa کui × 00:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

erh, that's a little patronising. it makes perfect sense and i found it concise. the most confusing thing about it was the tagging of it as confusing. if we are talking about philosophical thought i think we have to assume a certain level of comprehension. if you break it down too much you will lose the meaning. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.134.203 (talk &bull; contribs) 17:11, 3 November 2005.
 * Sorry- I don't mean to be patronizing. In general I agree that the article could assume some knowledge, but we can't assume any particular knowledge of the topic itself, or there would be no need for the article. :-) That's the kind of thing I'm talking about- I think the article could explain the concept itself in fuller detail. I'll be working to add stuff I know to this article in the future. ⟳ ausa کui × 04:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the main problem is that there needs to be a short explanation of what Kant means by "universal" in relation to the categorical imperative. A hyperlink is maybe in this case too little? I am, however, ill-qualified to add this.

I have two ideas how this could possibly be made clearer: It's incredibly difficult to simplify Kant - good luck! 70.226.178.177 07:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Callyson Grove
 * Establish that by ends, you mean in opposition to means
 * Clarify the idea of the sovereignty of law - that the authority of the law comes from the individual and only through obeying it can they acheive freedom

I think that this page would benefit if, in the explaination of the Kingdom of Ends, that it was put into context with, or at least pointed to, Kant's "Idea for a Universal History of Cosmpolitan Purpose," "Perpetual Peace: A Sketch," and "End of All Things." Each of these essays are extensions that draw from the Kingdom of Ends, which in turn draws significantly from the Critique of Pure Reason. While I'm not suggesting that there have to incredibly extensive write-ups on the relationship between the Kingdom of Ends and these essays, not including something on the essays would fail to account for the extend that Kant's Kingdom of Ends has on his practical philosphy. Chrisparsons 07:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about it
Hi, I see no one's been here for a while.

I agree, I'm afraid, that it is a bit confusing. I 've read Kant, so I understood, but had I not it would've left me puzzled. I feel that the whole thing needs to be a bit longer and I think it would be wrong if we were not to point out the parallels between the kingdom of ends and wikipedia's own philosophy.

Kant, as we know, is terribly hard to read and its not an easy task to bring his stuff to the layman without dumbing it down but it can be done.

If we agree with Kant then it is our duty to bring his work to others.

I will rewrite the lot in the next week or two (sorry, very busy) and leave it here for a bit for improvement before bunging it up. I have no wish to put anyones work down, its a great piece but deserves multiple input.

I will leave this here for a week or so to collect comments, if any, and contact the original authors. --Kylemew 09:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)