Talk:Immanuel Kant/Archive 2

message: I just significantly rewrote the introductory two paragraphs of the article. In the first, I put a bit more about the Enlightenment and also changed "philosopher and geographer" to "philosopher and scientist", mentioning a few of the areas of science to which he made contribution. His contributions to physics, astrophysics, and mathematics (nebular hypothesis, parity) surely outweigh any other scientific contributions. More importantly, the previous version of the second paragraph, giving an initial summary of Kant's philosophy, was deficient in two important ways. First, and most importantly, it defined Kant's transcendental idealism in terms of his doctrine of the ideality of space and time, of the forms of intuition, which for Kant was secondary to the activity of transcendental synthesis performed through the categories of the understanding, which is what the central piece of the Critique of Pure Reason, the transcendental deduction of the categories, is about. So I corrected that. Second, the previous version defined the center of Kant's philosophy and of his influence as being just his epistemology, and his moral philosophy was given short shrift. So I rewrote the paragraph to make both of them central. I'm summarizing this here for others who may work on this article in the future or may be already working on it. Jeremy J. Shapiro 07:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment reminds me that in the article on the Critique of Pure Reason, it needs to be made clear that when Kant talks about "intuition" he basically means "perception" and not "intuition" in the way that people use it in everyday language. I think that in general in these Kant (and probably some other philosophy articles) there needs to be a back and forth between the philosophers' original terminology and everyday language, so that people can understand what these things mean without being mystified, but preserving the original terms for the sake of accuracy. I certainly agree with you that "sensible forms" doesn't mean much in everyday language.  And these things are SO complicated by translation problems.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 08:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So does it seem better now? Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree that the "as if" is important.  I think it should probably be in the discussion of the Critique of Pure Reason and the relationship between the "as if" aspect in Pure Reason but the non-"as if"ness in Practical Reason, i.e. the difference between moral certainy and the lack of theoretical certainty, as in Kant's quote "I have restricted knowledge to make room for faith".  Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds fine to me.  I will try to do this sort of rewriting over the course of the next week, and certainly don't mind if you or anyone else does it.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The task you are undertaking is not an enviable one.  Kant is one of the most widely "read about" philosophers there is.  There is a ton of secondary material and he is thus one of the most widely misunderstood thinkers as a result. Everybody seems to have an opinion about his work and this article will have much input as to how people think it should be.  This is also a great tribute to Kant because of the emotions and ideas he seems to stir.  I spent several years studying Kant as a student under a German prof. and a Middle Eastern prof. who knew French existentialism inside and out, and how they robbed Kant of his ideas. I also spent a few more years as and an assistant to the existentialist.  The Critique of Pure Reason is my Bible. But I have no intentions of contributing directly to this article. I don't have the time or patience to argue the points, edit, and re-edit. Good luck.Amerindianarts 03:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  The discussion still needs to state some basic elements, i.e. keywords linking to other articles that will provide more information on Kant and philosophy.  This means mentioning such things as Copernican revolution, trancendental idealism, even intuition, etc.  If not, then the article is not going to be much of a guide for info and further research.Amerindianarts 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree on all these points, and I can't commit do doing a full rewrite of the entire Kant article either now (because of work commitments) or by myself ever, because of the amount of competence involved, especially if it needed to account for all of the controversies in the interpretation of Kant.  I think that might go beyond what Wikipedia should provide, that sounds more like a review article in a scholarly journal.  Seems to me what needs to be figured out is how to walk the tightrope between giving the sort of oversimplifying summary of a typical encyclopedia, which sweeps the controversy and difficulty under the rug, and getting into an overly complex scholarly article that is beyond what people are looking for when they consult an encyclopedia.  For example, I've been reading a rather good book on the Critique of Pure Reason by Arthur Collins called "Possible Experience", in which he argues quite convincingly that Kant was not an idealist but rather a realist, and that much Kant literature misinterprets him as an idealist because of assuming that he accepted basic premises of Descartes that in fact he didn't accept, i.e. that we only have access to our own inner consciousness.  I don't think the Wikipedia Kant article could get into all the ins and outs of that.  But it would probably be useful if it at least indicated that Kant's philosophy was quite controversial in the 18th century and is quite controversial now and that there are idealistic, realistic, phenomenological, existential, positivist, etc. readings of his central ideas.  By the way, like you I studied under some different Kant scholars, in both the U.S. and in Germany, and because they came out of different intellectual traditions, they emphasized really different things in Kant and read him rather differently.  I should add that as a relative newbie here, I don't yet have an understanding of what the consensus is of what an article on a major philosopher really should and shouldn't be like.  I tend to edit when I notice that some existing article has some weakness, omission, or distortion, and that tends to then get me embroiled in trying to help make that article really good and really accurate.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 08:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: PS. Like you I surf around to things of my interest and try to maintain a certain standard with minor edits.  I have only made a couple of major contributions. No time. I have three websites to maintain and a couple of e-stores, plus I publish a daily newsletter and most of my time is spent doing research for it. My major contribs at Wiki are usually subjects related to current research. Amerindianarts 10:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Passages that I have problems with:
*1) "The two interconnected foundations of what Kant called his "critical philosophy", of the "Copernican revolution" he claimed to have wrought in philosophy,"--I wonder about the "of" after "critical philosophy",  this may be just grammatical preference. "or" might work better
*2) "This consisted of conceptual unification and integration carried out by the mind through concepts or the "categories of the understanding" operating on perceptions within space and time, which in turn are also mental structures"--. "mental Structures" gives the impression of idealism.  Space and time were not concepts, but Intuitions.  "Mental structures" gives the impression that they would disappear without the mind, in a Berkeleyian fashion. What do you think?  Maybe the book you are reading will conjure a suggestion. Or, maybe to be safe, rephrase using "intuitions" and let the reader follow the link.  The page on "intuition" has Kant's definition, and if need be a page "intuition (philosophy)" can always be created.
*3) The next sentence "Thus the objective order of nature and the causal necessity that operates within it are products of the mind in its interaction with what lies outside of mind (the "thing-in-itself")"--. The position of (thing-in-itself) at the end of the sentence seems to ignore the distinction between "appearances" and "things-in-themselves".  The order and necessity that lies in the thing itself is unknowable. Appearances are products of the mind, but so are the conclusions we draw about the thing in itself. Appearances, I think, are also intended to be this side of the thing in itself which is outside the mind.  Feel free to correct me, but this can be tricky because appearance and perception in Kant are not the same. I think this distinction, especially when I read the next sentence("The latter can never be known except through the forms that the mind imposes upon it."), relies on Kant's distinction between the transcendental and the transcendent. The transcendental logic (which has been described as Kant's term for general logic) is what we impose upon our representations (loosely appearances), but these representations are not simply mind pictures (otherwise he would rightly be a representationalist).  When we impose this upon the thing itself it becomes transcendent, that is, we are imposing pure reason. I would have to think about possible suggestions.
*4)Last, I would put a comma after "activity" in the last sentence "and that philosophy involves self-critical activity irrevocably reshaped philosophy"
*Feel Free to rebut
PS, I like this article's format (Jaakko Hintikka), but reducing Kant to this would be wishful thinking I'm afraid.Amerindianarts 12:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, transcendental idealism is Kant's own term.  So we can't just take it out, but it would be good to explain it.  Transcendental philosophy in German is used by some phenomenologists and other post-Kantian philosophers who are following up on some of Kant's ideas, but they aren't doing the same thing that Kant was doing in using the expression transcendental idealism.  One of Husserl's main criticisms of Descartes and Kant was that they weren't transcendental enough.  But you're right that Kant's use of transcendental idealism has contributed to confusion about his philosophy, and the Collins book I'm reading quotes Kant to the effect that Kant wished he hadn't used the expression precisely for this reason, i.e. that people took him to be an idealist.  But since Kant uses it in conjunction with empirical realism, if we make that clear, then we can avoid confusing people. Jeremy J. Shapiro 03:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Nobody on this page is claiming that Kant was an idealist.  I am not writing the article, but I agree with you. Transcendental philosophy is fine, but it is currently redirected to transcendental idealism, as if that helps the situation. Same with intuition.  "Mental construct" overlooks that space is presupposed by the mind as an external intuition and not a result of experience.  And yes, the thing in itself does exist, but we can't know it and any claims we make stating we do are transcendent. Where in the writings above do you read inferences that Kant doubted the existence of the thing in itself?Amerindianarts 02:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: To whomever it may concern on this page, I think the article at transcendence (philosophy) is confused.Amerindianarts 03:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: At your suggestion, I just checked it out and not only do I agree with you but it seems like it would be better to take it out and just put in a one-sentence stub, because it is a mishmash of unclarity.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 03:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent work, here, is a vast improvement to the article.  I am glad that the fallacy that the CI is merely a version of the golden rule was changed, especially since Kant himself said quite clearly that it was not. Kant could not have cared less about how one would want to be treated by others or how others would want to be treated if a proposed action did not comport with reason and if one could not also will it as a universal law, notwithstanding whether one is perpetrator or victim. icut4u 03:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: LOL Removal is always a bold move, re: trancendence (philosophy).  I think the decision to keep transcendental idealism is a sound one. I am also curious as to the date of the book you are reading.  I never once had a prof who taught Kant as anything other than a Realist.  In my first year I refered to Kant as an idealist and the reply was "Mensch! Dummkopf!"  It's funny, now.Amerindianarts 04:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I just did some editing on transcendence (philosophy).  I don't even think what I did is that great, but it is at least more accurate than what's there before, and I don't have time to spend more time on it right now.  I have a German book here called "Philosophie und Transzendence" that I've never read and which I'm sure would help, but I don't have time to read it now. Jeremy J. Shapiro 06:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I finally read the intro and made some comments above.  The thing that struck me about the transcendence (philosophy) page was that it seemed they had confused transcendent and transcendental, but I am a Kantian and never really explored Transcendence, so... I have been spending my time expanding the stub at Sublime. It corresponds to research I'm doing on the Zuni.  If you read German there is a good, short, obscure article by Gerold Prauss entitled "Intentionalitat bei Kant". I have the article but can't remember the journal it was in.  I don't know anyone else that has read it, so discussion has been a pipedream.  You're in the UK??? No holiday on Monday?? Amerindianarts 08:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I also read the transcendence (philosophy) . It appears fine.  The only thing lacking may to distinguish between Kant's transcendental and transcendent.  The only thing to really say about that is that Kant's concept of transcendent lacks the objectivity claimed by the phenomenologists.  Kant's transcendent is Wittgenstein's transcendent.  The only difference being that Witty didn't distinguish between transcendent and transcendental. Amerindianarts 09:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  It goes to show that you can never really complete your own proof reading.  Amerindianarts 17:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Comments

message: An anonymous user changed the introductions "generally regarded as one of Europe's most influential thinkers" to "generally regarded as one of Europe's most influential thinkers of the second millenium.  While I wouldn't fight about it, it seems to me that philosophers generally would regard Kant as one of the most influential philosophers of all time (along with Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, possibly Hegel and Nietzsche, and leaving the 20th century out of it).  Does anyone see a reason to include "of the second millenium?" Jeremy J. Shapiro 00:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. "Second Millenium" limits his scope, but I wouldn't replace it "with all time". I would change it anyway because it was anonymous. Everybody has something to say about Kant and if they are going to say it, they should sign it.Amerindianarts 03:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I changed it to "one of Western society's and modern Europe's most influential thinkers", but I'm not attached to this in the least.  Don't hesitate to edit.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 05:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good change. --goethean ॐ 17:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Amerindianarts 00:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Millenium?

message: The article refers to Mendelssohn.  Which Mendelssohn is meant here? --Slashme 09:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is to Moses M.  I've disambiguated the link. fi99ig 14:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mendelssohn

message: User:Fi99ig, why did you take out the description that Kant's "What is Enlightment" won a prize?  These prizes were very important in the 18th century, they were a way of recognizing certain ideas as leading ideas of the day.  The fact that Kant's essay won the prize (my memory tells me that it was from the Prussian Academy of Sciences, but I may be wrong) was a way of saying that his formulation of the idea of Enlightenment was, in a way, canonical for the period.  Or should that be stated explicitly in the article?  Because I think that's the point of it being described as "prize-winning".  I think it was I who put that in, and that's certainly what I had in mind. Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeremy, I agree about the importance of the prizes, but I suspect you're thinking of a different essay: Kant's "Inquiry Concerning the Distinctness of the Principles..." (often referred to as the "Prize Essay").  "What is Enlightenment?" was published in the Berlinische Monatsschrift.  I don't believe it won a prize, but, if I'm mistaken, I apologize. fi99ig 00:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. "Inquiry..." was written in response to a question posed by the Berlin Academy, which was a contest of sorts, the question being posed to many philosophers. "Enlightenment" was written many years later independently for publication.Amerindianarts 01:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for correction, sorry for mistake.  It is actually many years since I occupied myself seriously with Kant, so some things have faded or become fuzzy in my mind. Someplace in my apt. I actually have the book containing not only Kant's but all of the other essays written in response to that question, so when I have a chance I will check it out and apprise myself of the complete story of the publication of that essay.  If there's anything specially interesting, I'll report it to the rest of you.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 02:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I first read the "prize winning" entry you made it didn't register with me either.  I thought you were just being a little over enthusiastic and complimentary about a really great piece of literature.  That you actually meant a prize didn't sink in and it didn't seem important enough to edit. That is my problem with editing other people's entries here at Wiki. If it is not a factual, grammatical, or blatant POV, I tend to ignore it. There is for anybody a little bit of ego in making a post, and my days of grading papers have long since past and I'm no longer in the mode for bursting bubbles. Good call on the part of Fi99ig. Amerindianarts 02:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prize-winning

message: Biography section, third paragraph, the statement "Despite questioning this argument however, Kant in this piece defends a modified form of rational theology, which he subsequently rejected in his Critical work".  Either POV or not providing enough detail.  Take your pick. Probably copied from a seconary source. Amerindianarts 05:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Only Possible Ground of Proof for a Demonstration of God's Existence

message: I removed this as original work. The reason I did so was after checking many reference sources (and not secondary works) I found that articles of this name rarely mention Kant.  The decisive factor was his absense in this regard in article of the same name in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'  Thus, it was original work.  It also indicates that any reference to Kant as forming a "bridge" between the two schools requires some justification, and if not, then reworded to reflect that Kant's doctrines simply contained elements of both schools.Amerindianarts 06:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationalism and Empiricism

message: I have a question about 69.234.22.129's deletion of "respectively" from the 2nd paragraph introduction.  The user cites the following reason for doing so:
*"implies TWO concepts in relation to two others(former to former, latter to latter)"
But I'm not exactly clear on what's wrong with the original sentence.  It ran as follows:
*"These [i.e., Kant's epistemology and moral philosophy] placed the active, rational human subject at the center of the cognitive and moral worlds respectively."
It seems to me that "respectively" is useful here, in that it makes it clear that the epistemology puts the subject at the center of the cognitive world, and the moral philosophy puts the subject at the center of the moral world.  That sounds right to me.  Perhaps 69.234.22.129 could clarify his or her reasons for deleting the term. fi99ig 20:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I meant when I put in "respectively" in the first place.  But now it looks OK to me either way (I guess because it's ultimately the same subject), so I don't know if it matters; I certainly will defer to others' views. Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Respectively

message: Hi all - I hope I haven't done anything too drastic.  Kant's page is VERY long - but I've began trying to organize it.  I've started in the Biography section.  Please change things as necessary, but I think it's at least a little more navigable.
Also, the "Early life" section may be broken up into too many subparts.  Change this as necessary as well!
Hope this reorganization helps rather than detracts from the article.
FranksValli 02:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good!  Hopefully we can get this huge article a bit cleaned up  :)  FranksValli 04:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization of Biography section 

message: User Mirra21 inserted the following phrase into the introduction:  "(Transcendental meaning beyond the sense experience - Space and Time being forms of perception)".  This makes the sentence it's in into an incomplete sentence, and this material is already covered later in the article as well as in the Critique of Pure Reason article, so I have removed it pending further discussion.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 04:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of reversion

message: I've reorganized this section, and added a few items.  I thought it would be useful to divide the list into a few categories, so as to guide the reader in an appropriate direction.  With the same intention, I've added a short gloss on some of the works I'm more familiar with.  (I thought of also incorporating the introductory comments into the list as glosses on those works, but I've left it as is for now.  Perhaps we could discuss this.)  I'll be the first to admit that it's tricky coming up with appropriate categories, so please let me know if you have a better way of doing it.  Also, it would be good to have a few more introductory texts on Kant, but nothing's coming to mind at the moment.  Any suggestions?  If people are just generally against categorizing these references, we can always revert back to the old list. --fi99ig 20:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this categorization is an absolutely super contribution to this article, and my hat is off to you for doing something so valuable.  It also will make it easier for the rest of us both to add works and to comment on ones we know about.  This almost makes me think that we should have an informal understanding, in this and other such philosophy articles, that people shouldn't put in references without such comments, or that at least the goal should be to eventually have them put there, since for a beginner in a topic, a list of advanced philosophy books is not going to provide much helpful guidance.  Anyway, thanks so much.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Jeremy.  It would probably be good to include some books on Kant's aesthetics, but this is an area I'm not very familiar with.  I think there might be a collection of essays on this topic by Ted Cohen.  Anyone know about this? --fi99ig 00:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the additions, A.  I'ved added the books to the Reference section (I don't know if we're including articles or not -- perhaps something to discuss).  If you want to add any one-line glosses on these works, that would be great. --fi99ig 21:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to References and Further Reading

message: I've largely rewritten the biography section.  Although there was much that was very good in it, I felt that the emphases were sometimes in the wrong place: for instance, several minor works received more attention than the Critique of Pure Reason.  I've tried to offer a balanced description of his life, but I'm sure I've failed in places.  Please let me know if you have any concerns or if you would like to restore some of the previous material.  It may be too detailed in places.  Also, as I see it, there are still two particularly important items missing from the account I've given: first, Kant's dispute with Eberhard; and, second, the influence of Hume.  Concerning the former, I wasn't sure how to fit it into the main account (and I was worried that it was getting a bit too long anyway).  Concerning the second, I just couldn't figure out what to say.  There doesn't seem to be much consensus in the secondary literature regarding how much influence Hume had on Kant (clearly it was significant) and when this influence had its effect.  If anyone has a good way of incorporating these topics, please do so.  Finally, there were several descriptions of particular works in the previous version that struck me as being useful, but not particularly biographical.  Rather than simply delete them, I've moved them to the corresponding pages for those works.  (One exception is the description that was given for "Inquiry into the Distinctness of the Principles of Natural Theology and Morals", which is actually a description of a different work by Kant.) fi99ig 00:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I took it out because I couldn't find any record of it.  The editors of the Cambridge Edition of the Works of Kant refer to False Subtlety as an independently published treatise from 1762, perhaps intended as a means of promoting his lectures on logic (see Theoretical Philosophy 1755-70, pp. lvii-lviii).  They do not mention any work called Intro to Logic from this time period.  Kuehn's biography of Kant also treats False Subtlety as an independent work (see pp. 135-6).  In fact, I haven't been able to find any record of a work called Intro to Logic  Do you perhaps mean the so-called Jasche logic that was published based on his lecture notes right around the time of his death?  But that was published 38 years later, so they would clearly be separate works.  Of course, it's quite possible I've simply missed the reference to the work you have in mind.  If you have it, please let me know. fi99ig 04:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: update: I think I may have found the source of the confusion.  One of the earliest English translations of Kant's logical writings was a volume called Kant's Introduction to Logic and His Essay on the Mistaken Subtlety (translated by Abbott and reprinted many times).  Perhaps this what you have in mind?  But it's simply a translation of Kant's two published works in logic: the Jasche logic from 1800 and the much earlier False Subtlety from 1762. fi99ig 05:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "so-called" just means "so-called".  The German title of the work is not "Jäsche logic", but it's generally referred to in this way so as to distinguish it from other works based on Kant's lectures on logic.  (On this point, see, e.g., the translator's introduction to the new Cambridge edition of Kant's lectures on logic, p. xix.)  That said, it's incorrect that Jäsche was only responsible for the first 30 pages or so.  He was responsible for compiling and editing the entire document based on Kant's lecture notes, and, although Kant did authorize the work, there is no evidence that he contributed to the compilation or even reviewed the final product (see pp. xvi-xviii of the above-mentioned edition).  The translator concludes: "One cannot simply assume, then, that Jäsche's manual is a reliable statement of Kant's views." (xviii)  (On the same page there are references to various other works that make the same point.)  Of course, no one doubts that it roughly gets Kant's views on logic correctly, but it can't be viewed with quite the same authority as Kant's other published works. fi99ig 15:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, they might disagree on the reliability issue (to some extent), but they certainly don't disagree on the question of how much of it was edited by Jäsche.  No one disagrees that Jäsche compiled and edited the entire document.  Even Hartman, your preferred translator, points out that Jäsche compiled the text from Kant's marginal annotations and inserts in the textbook by Meiers that he used in his logic lectures, and that Jäsche inserted "some of Kant's formulations taken from his other works" (p. iii).  Hartman never claims that Kant played any active role in turning these annotations into a book.  Nor does anyone else, as far as I can tell.  So, Jäsche is clearly the editor of the entire work.  This means that there is no way of reliably knowing if Kant would have compiled his annotations in the same order.  Nor is there any way of reliably knowing which annotations represent Kant's considered view and which were simply ideas he toyed with at some point in time.  (In this respect, the work is more like the Opus Postumum, which was also compiled by someone other than Kant.)  Of course, none of this is to say that the book is not quite useful in understanding Kant's thought.  It certainly is.  But, to repeat myself, it can't have quite the authorititave status of a work that Kant himself put together and supervised in bringing to print.  This seems to be the standard view in the secondary literature on this topic. fi99ig 17:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Look, you can dispute my claims all you like.  I really don't mind, so long as you argue for your position.  But please keep the personal attacks to yourself.  They're not helpful.  And believe it or not, but I don't have a great deal at stake concerning Jäsche's role in the Logic.  You made a series of claims that sounded wrong to me, so I looked up the information and commented on what I found.  You said that False Subtlety "is an addendum" to a work called Intro to Logic", and this was wrong -- they're completely separate works.  You said that "supposedly Jasche is only responsible for possibly editing the first 30 pages or so", and this was wrong -- he edited the entire work.  You said that the translator's notes to the Hartmann-Schwartz edition disagreed regarding "how much it was edited by Jasche", and this too was mistaken -- they agreed that the entire work was compiled and edited by him.  Don't get mad at me for pointing out these mistakes.  Anyway, we've digressed from the main point.  I take it you're fine with the deletion I made in the section on Kant's works. fi99ig 18:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to Bio

message: Small point: In the "Kant and his Philosophy" section it says "The latter, [the-thing-in-itself] can never be known except through the forms that the mind imposes upon it.". Isn't this kind of off the mark? In general Kant doesn't allow that we have knowledge of things in themselves. I'd like to remove that sentence. Any objections? Wjwma 00:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that there is little consensus in the secondary literature regarding the status of the thing in itself.  At some point we might want to just point out the two main readings.  There's the two-world model, in which the thing in itself is a distinct entity from the appearance it "causes" (in some sense of cause); and then there's the two-aspect model, in which the thing in itself just is the appearance (but considered in abstraction from our cognitive and sensible contributions).  Both readings have their strengths and weaknesses.  Frankly, the topic strikes me as being a real minefield, and I'm not sure how we should approach it.  Regarding this particular sentence, I don't have a strong opinion either way.  I don't object to omitting it for the time being. fi99ig 05:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thing-in Itself

message: I cannot find any menion of sex in the article.
:I don't know.  Maybe someone else has an answer. Amerindianarts 22:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the people who write on philosophy of sexuality do tend to mention Kant fairly frequently.  For instance, in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a fairly reputable source), the article on Phil. of Sex. has a section on Kant (here: http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/L094SECT6#L094P8.31, although I think you need to be logged in to read it).  But from the fact that this area of philosophy finds Kant important, it doesn't follow that the area is important to the study of Kant.  After all, pretty much every area of philosophy refers to Kant at some point.  My vote is to remove the link. fi99ig 22:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this guy in the category Philosophy of Sexuality? 

message: OK, you have an article on Kant and an article on Kantianism which is defined there as "Kantian Philosophy" and you have a developed article on the Categorical Imperative. There's an awful lot of information that's duplicated and I suggest that the more precisely titled articles be developed with the information from here so the main "Kant" article can be made lighter and more easily readable. Jules LT 22:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I would probably be against merging these two articles.  That is, I think there is a place for an article on Kantianism distinct from an article on Kant.  Where the latter focuses on the actual philosophy of Kant, the former can discuss roughly Kantian approaches to philosophy (approaches that might not be identical to Kant's own view.)  To use an analogy, one can be a Platonist with regard to philosophy of mathematics (thinking, for instance, that numbers are metaphysical entities), without endorsing Plato's specific views on the nature of numbers.  Terms like Kantian and Platonist are often used in this way -- to indicate an approach to philosophy that has an affinity with one great thinker or another.  As I see it, the problem with the Kantianism article right now is that it doesn't sufficiently distance itself from Kant's actual views.  (For instance, it begins by saying: "Kantianism is the philosophy of Immanuel Kant", where I would prefer something like: "Kantianism refers to philosophical views that share an affinity with the thought of Kant" -- that could use some cleaning up, but you get the idea.)  It would be more interesting (to me, at least) if it explored the various ways people apply roughly Kantian solutions to philosophical problems.  For instance, one could talk about recent Kantian approaches to ethics (Koorsgaard, Bok, etc.); McDowell's Kantian epistemology; and so on.  Anyway, that's my suggestion.  What do other people think? fi99ig 19:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: just got back from a wikibreak, it will take me a while to catch up with the discussion. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Kantianism]]

message: An anonymous user changed the statement that in his Enlightenment essay Kant defined the Enlightenment to read that he defined "the era of the Enlightenment."  I changed it back because it seems to me that the era of the Enlightenment consists of all of the surrounding political, cultural, and social stuff, and that Kant is not really defining that in his essay.  But perhaps my reaction is distorted.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Jeremy.  I was about to change it back myself. fi99ig 15:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Era

message: This article seems to be the object of much vandalism lately.  Especially User 82.41.96.14 .  Can this user be blocked?  It is obvious that their fun and games are of a juvenile mentality.Amerindianarts 23:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: The following text was deleted by User:12.159.135.17, and I agree with the deletion, as it is too much elaboration for this page.  However the infomation is valuable and should probably be moved into a sub-Kant page.  Here is the text that was removed - please place this somewhere else!  Thanks!
There are two types of contradiction that Kant thinks may arise with impermissible maxims. The first type he calls "contradictions in conception." Kant uses the example of a false promise to illustrate this. His imagined agent has the maxim: "I am going to lie so that someone will lend me money, because I am in need." Kant argues that universalizing this maxim would lead to a contradiction — that is, if everyone were to follow this maxim, and were to lie whenever in need, promises would mean nothing. So it would be contradictory or irrational in the possible world to make a false promise to secure money, since your promise would simply be laughed at. Thus, acting on such a maxim in the real world is impermissible, which means we have a duty not to make false promises just to satisfy our needs. Incidentally, Kant believed that any maxim involving lying would lead to a contradiction, leading to his commitment to the view that we have a perfect (i.e. inviolable) duty not to lie.	 
The second type of contradiction Kant calls "contradictions in will," which arise when a universalized maxim would contradict something the agent would have to will as a rational being. Kant's example involves a self-reliant person who thinks everybody should mind their own business, and thus acts on the maxim: "Don't help others." In the imagined world where this is universalized, Kant thinks that this would necessarily contradict something any rational agent must will, namely that if one is in great need and could easily be helped by another, as a rational being he would have to will that the other person help him — but this universalized maxim contradicts that, thus leading to a contradiction in will, and showing that the policy, "Don't help others" is impermissible.
--FranksValli 19:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tonight I finally went and looked this up in the Manfred Kuehn biography of Kant, which I believe is considered authoritative, and here's what it says: "On April 22 of this year Immanuel Kant was born om Koenigsberg. The Old Prussian Almanac associated the name "Emanuel" with this date.  Accordingly, he was baptized "Emanuel". He would later change it to "Immanuel", thinking that this was a more faithful rendition of the original Hebrew. "Emanuel" or "Immanuel" means "God is with him." Kant thought that it was a most appropriate name, and he was uncommonly proud of it, commenting on its meaning even in his old age. It is perhaps meaningful that he found it necessary critically to evaluate and correct the very name given to him, but it is noteworthy that the literal meaning of his name provided him with comfort and confidence throughout his life."  He then goes on to refer to him as Emanuel in the whole section of the book that discusses his youth.  But then when he's older he just refers to him as Kant, so I can't see if he pinpoints the exact year when Kant changed his name from "Emanuel" to "Immanuel".  So I suppose that it might be worth saying in the article, "baptized as 'Emanuel', or something like that, but not describe it as an alternative spelling or name, because Kant himself apparently never used "Emanuel" once he changed it to "Immanuel". Jeremy J. Shapiro 05:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it might be worth mentioning somewhere, perhaps in the biography section.  I also support its deletion from the opening paragraph, as it surely isn't significant enough to warrant such a prominent mention.  For what it's worth, there do seem to be some works in the English secondary literature that refer to him as Emmanuel (as revealed by searching Amazon.com), but they're a distinct and vanishing minority. fi99ig 05:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree: in the bio but not the introduction. Jeremy J. Shapiro 05:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I thought I had a book by Blakely on Emmanuel Kant, but can't find it to verify.  Library catalogs I checked referenced Emmanuel but with no works listed and redirected to Immanuel.  I did find several alternative spellings, including Immanuil Kant and 'Imanu'el Kant. Does anyone want to make the change? Feel free. Amerindianarts 10:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions by [[User:12.159.135.17]] from [[Immanuel Kant#Example of the first formulation:]] 

message: Since this is, I think, a general encyclopedia for the general public and not specifically a philosophy one for philosophers, I was wondering if we could simplify some of the language in some of these articles.  Kant is already hard enough to understand, for some of us anyway, so why compound the situation with unnecessarily difficult language?
Just a question/suggestion, --Jim 00:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really not that simple.  If you think that Kant is difficult then you can imagine what would be entailed by translating his terminolgy and ideas to everyone's satisfaction.  I think the current article has tried to preserve his terminolgy, and not everyone will agree on what he meant by certain terms.  You could spin several paragraphs attempting to explain a term and not everyone will agree that it is a neutral point of view. Amerindianarts 00:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  philosophy speak 

message: Why does this article go into detail about the categorical imperative?  Why not leave that to the categorical imperative article?  If people want to know more about it all they have to do is click the link.--Jim 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  It has been discussed before.  It will take a consensus to get it done. Amerindianarts 01:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the section on the categorical imperative I have to agree that the section probably does go into more detail than needed, to the degree that it either needs more detail to explain the points that have been left open, or it needs to be reduced, serving as a link to the main article.  For example, the sentence "and is not based on contingent facts about the world (e.g., what would make us happy)" is rather open ended.  That the question of our own happiness is not the end of ends is Kant's point of criticism of the Nichomachean ethics, but he also states in the Critique of Pure Reason that we should ask not "are we happy", but "are we worthy of our happiness?" as the question of questions. What seems to be undermined here is the importance of the will, duty, and the sacrifice of personal happiness for the community of man.  They are mentioned haphazardly, but it is not a neat little bundle of informative joy. This is just a suggestion to someone who may want to undertake the task.  I have neither the time or patience to argue for the change or make to it. Amerindianarts 19:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  categorical imperative 

message: The quote appearing as an epitaph on Kant's gravestone also appears lower down under a Quotes section.  It seems that this isn't necessary in an already lengthy article.  I am still rather new so I will leave it to another to change if they fell it is unnecessary.  (Not willing to screw up everything) Chaoscrowley 03:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Edits Needed

message: I've removed the references to critics of Kant that were recently added at the end of this section, as they are off topic.  As I see it, the references to Peikoff and Rand do not belong anywhere in the article, for the Objectivists are generally (and rightly, in my opinion) not taken seriously in the Philosophical community.  If anyone wants to keep the reference to Quine, perhaps we could start a new section on Kant's critics.  If so, it might be better to refer more generally to the naturalist trend in recent philosophy, as Quine's criticisms of Kant are grounded in his naturalism.  Just a thought. fi99ig 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a correct edit.  A section on his critics might be a good idea, but some will argue that the article is already too lengthy. Amerindianarts 12:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kant's Influence

message: Taking note of the points above, I just wanted to give the topic another airing. I was lectured by Nick Jardine at Cambridge in history of science and philosophy; when talking of Kant, one of his favourite asides was that his contributions in geography were far more significant than those in philosophy. There was a slight tongue-in-cheek wickedness to this aside, to be sure, but I suspect there was more than a grain of truth in the importance he attached to this aspect of Kant's work. If it is worth noting, perhaps a geographer with the relevant knowledge could add a section - I'm sure it would be right to add it at the end of the article, rather than at the beginning.
Jonathan Hollow 84.9.102.198 17:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kant as a geographer 

message: The last section in Deontological ethics, "Specific criticsms of Kant's ethics"... It has recently been suggested (by user Kikl) that it doesn't really belong in that article.  Earlier I moved it there because somebody said it didn't really belong in Categorical imperative either.  I feel that much of it contains valid criticisms of Kant's ethics (although I am not an expert), and that these criticisms should be put somewhere... but nobody wants it.  Any positive suggestions on where it should go... this page would seem to be the a plausible candidate, since there aren't any criticsm sections here yet.  WhiteC 07:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, after some disagreement, a home has been found for it at Categorical imperative, where it has been somewhat improved.  I removed the content from this page.  WhiteC 19:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: trying to find a home for criticisms of Kant's ethics

message: The following images have been uploaded to Commons and can be used in this or other Kant pages!
FranksValli 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New pictures available