I hate Kant.

You hate Immanuel Kant. Hate - To dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward. You have yet to demonstrate this hate. You merely insist that it exists but have provided no substantial proof for its existence. How do you hate him? Why do you hate him? Define Kant. Do you mean the physical person? If so, it is impossible for you to have hated him because you never knew him. You can assume you knew the kind of person he was through his writings but is this an accurate gauge? Take George Bush for example. I dislike many of his policies and I find some of his political maneuvering to be deceitful and underhanded. Do I hate him as a person? No. Probably not. Thats the point. I've never had a meaningful exchange with George Bush and gotten to know what kind of person he is. Certainly his policies and politics are telling of his personality but they are not definitive and are certainly not enough to base this kind of judgment on. And if I can prove to the voters that your hate is without any substance or misguided then I have undermined the whole basis for which hate exists which would suggest that your hate never existed in the first place. Do you mean his writings? If so, I would submit that it stems from a misunderstanding of his writing style (which you partially admit to). Whereas other contemporary philosophers were writing for a broad general audience with works that are relatively accessible to educated readers, Kant wrote in an academic style that is notoriously difficult to follow. Regardless of the inaccessibility of his writings it doesn't change the fact that he developed a philosophical analysis of morality without evoking a God or divine deity. The "nature of morality" is something that Kant is still the leading authority on and his writings are still referenced and taught (not that this matters but I think its important that regardless of your personal feelings towards him he still should be respected for his contributions). If you do hate his writing you need to explain which writings you hate and why they prompt such extreme hostility from you. Failing to do this would lead us to assume that you are hateful and Kant is just caught in the cross-fire. Not that you have a directed hatred for Kant. This is an important distinction. Does that make sense? I'll continue once you have directed your hate a little bit more appropriately. But let me just say, for the sake of this debate, that although your reasons to hate Kant are your own you must still provide reasons that can be debated. My point being that if this debate becomes, "I hate him just because. " Then really what has been demonstrated is not a tangible hate for Kant but instead that hate exists arbitrarily and in no way is linked to Kant. The origin of the hate and motivation for the hate are integral because without them hate cannot really exist. It becomes meaningless. I have a feeling that convincing you out of an emotion is going to be an uphill battle but lets not forget that emotions are still subservient to our reason. If I can counter your reason or rationale fueling the hate then I have effectively undermined the hate. -connor