Talk:Kantianism

message: The epistemology section of this page presents a grossly inaccurate summary of Kantian epistemology. The other sections seem grossly misrepresentative too. I'll work on it when I have some time, but for now it pains me to see most of this page's contents. Any edit would be helpful!
Aniras 02:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portions of this article are horribly inaccurate

message: There is a discussion of this topic under way at the Kant talk page.  FYI. fi99ig 19:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Immanuel Kant's philosophy has a nice summary on his page (although there could be more written about the categories) and that because that page is getting rather large in file size, we should move it all here and rewrite Kant's page with very basic summaries and links to the adequate portions of this page (such as a brief summary of space and time being pure a priori forms of intuition and a link to the portion of this page that deals with that more in depth). As for the Neo-Kantian page, I think it should be kept separate from this page and list some of the major followers of Kant's philosophy and where they differ from him (such as Schopenhauer, who is a good example, Jakob Friedrich Fries and Karl Jaspers). Josh.passmore 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: proposed merge of Kant and Kantianism articles

message: It seems like there is some complementary information on this page that isn't included at the biography page called Immanuel Kant. My proposal is that we check this page for possible plaigarism, only because the writing quality is very high, and this topic is so difficult. I certainly couldn't say a whole lot about the topics in the headings, and I've studied a lot of philosophy. Kant is obtuse and he makes me crabby. 
Also, it seems like it would be good if we listed Philosophers who followed Kant, if we are going to continue having a page called Kantianism. My guess is that most people that could be called "Kantianists" would fit better at the Neo-Kantianism page.
I'm going to start looking for plaigarized sources, because that's a job I can do, but I'd like to leave altering the pages up to someone with a little more experience with Kant. Maybe we can figure out some philosophers that are Kantianists and preserve this page, but my guess is that there isn't any reason to do so.
69.221.216.14 18:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Immanuel Kant's philosophy has a nice summary on his page (although there could be more written about the categories) and that because that page is getting rather large in file size, we should move it all here and rewrite Kant's page with very basic summaries and links to the adequate portions of this page (such as a brief summary of space and time being pure a priori forms of intuition and a link to the portion of this page that deals with that more in depth). As for the Neo-Kantian page, I think it should be kept separate from this page and list some of the major followers of Kant's philosophy and where they differ from him (such as Schopenhauer, who is a good example, Jakob Friedrich Fries and Karl Jaspers). Josh.passmore 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My two cents

message: Is there a distinction between Kantianism and Kantism? There's a stub on that page that i think should be deleted. Borisblue 16:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kantism

message: Removing:
:The Categorical Imperative is very different from a simple "What if everyone did this," moral argument and appeals solely to logical principles.
This is a worthless assertion. You'll have to explain what the difference is (currently, you're just saying "I know that difference, but I'm not gonna tell you"). --193.99.145.162 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uninformative sentence in "Ethics" section 

message: some1 plz come up with a better example!!! teh current version suckz!!! it giv the following example: 
"kill everyone who annoys you" 
it says that teh maxim is illogical cos if it were followed soon the world would be devoid of people to kill...
wtf!!!  teh same argument can be applied to "obliterate the HIV  virus", "destroy every sample of small pox"... if some1 destroy the hiv virus, there wouldn't be any more hiv virus to destroy...   so like, wtf men, kantian ethics says we shouldn't destroy AIDS and shit ??? omfg... that's lamez
need better xample plz, 1 of you smart ppl
:I think the example is a very good one. Regardless of what it implies, the examples of "Obliterate the HIV virus" and "destroy every sample of small pox" are considered irrational by the standards presented in the article. Changing the example won't change the standards by which you evaluate it. And I'm sure I could think of many medical reasons why it would, in fact, not be a great idea to obliterate all of HIV or small pox. There is a reason we still have vials of the bubonic plague around.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.226.25 (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My two cents : going by what is presented in the article, the "Obliterate the HIV virus" amounts to being valid (end) by the presented "Categorical Imperative" (keep eliminating HIV if rediscovered) or  amounts to "perfect duty" even otherwise, wherein the maxim would no longer be needed anymore then. Quote: "Kant's ethics are founded on his view of rationality as the ultimate good and his belief that all people are fundamentally rational beings". To put it in very simple words: no one wants to have this virus, everyone wants to kill this virus. Also killing the virus is a good thing as opposed to what the article example uses (people); people want good things not the bad things. IMHO, the example used in the article conveys the idea with great ease.
I am new to the idea of editing the wiki, and I am not sure where such a suggestion/request would go (if at all)? Also, I am no expert in any of the matters involved... But, it would be significant/great to also see Kant's philosophy being applied to the system of petrodollars, current global monetary system, debt and the economic/financial/political diktats from the IMF & World Bank (which are very much actuated by humans). More accurately, apply them to the unbalanced consumerism/materialism (actuated by a system that humans actuate) prevalent in parts of the world arising from the combination of these factors mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by X86core (talk • contribs) 11:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: some1 plz come up with a better ex for categorical imperative

message: The part about Kant's philosophy in the article about Kant is much longer and probably much better than the description here. Can we just remove it? Ettrig (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is redundant