Talk:Immanuel Kant/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title: More comments from [[User:Spinoza1111|Spinoza1111]] on Influence

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: What would you recommend saying?--Anthony Krupp 22:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: OK, I'm willing to listen.--Anthony Krupp 22:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: [[User:Spinoza1111|Spinoza1111]] edits Influence section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Disagree. I agree, the man is far different from the philosophy. cheers, --zachjones4 10:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: merging of Kantianism

message: 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)
replies: text: Infant??? Piepants 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kant was a racist 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A note on the 'myth' about 'Kant's personal mannerisms'. 

message: 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. .)  Thanks in advance. fi99ig 14:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: citation needed

message: 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)
thread_title: Unsupported Statement?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Aesthetics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: 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)
thread_title: Removal of Epistemology Addition

message: 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)
thread_title: Belief in God, part II

message: 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)
thread_title: Kant's religious beliefs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Re adding a fact tag to every caluse, cf. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Li3crmp 20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Edits to Morality