Talk:Immanuel Kant/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capital of Prussia

The Text says "Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Königsberg, the capital of Prussia at that time." Königsberg wasnt the capital of the Kingdom of Prussia. It was just the Coronation place (because it was outside the Holy Roman Empire). Berlin was the Capital. Although Königsberg was the capital of the province of Prussia/Eastern Prussia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.57.93.154 (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with formatting

I can only see the infobox (using IE7), any ideas? Other browsers seem OK as do other wiki pages in IE7 Talltim (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to work OK now, some strange glitch Talltim (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Scottish on both sides of the family

According to Fischer's " Scots in Germany" (1902)Kant's paternal grandfather was also Scottish, although there seems to have been some confusion about where he lived,

"At this point of our survey we must not forget the grandfather of the great philosopher Emanuel Kant, who was born of Scottish parents. In the draft of an answer to a letter of the Swedish Bishop Lindblom, in which the Swedish descent of Kant’s father had been started, the philosopher says: "It is very well known to me, that my grandfather, who was a citizen of the Prusso-Lithuanian town of Tilsit, came originally from Scotland." (79.190.69.142 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

Immanuel Kant`s mother`s maiden name is REUTER, not Porter, and she was born and baptized in Koenigsberg, not Nuremberg. The story of Kant`s supposed Scottish ancestry was debunked years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.230.157 (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Petras Klimas in his memoirs wrote that in one of Kantas work, that was printed in 1804, had been written that Kantas is from the region of Klaipėda, from gardeners Lithuanians. His mother was unable even to speak German. 2) Soviet linguists V. Toporov and A. Nepokupn took a note of surname of Kantas that is clearly Prussian-Lithuanian. They also noticed that only Germans from East Prussia has this surname. 3) G and H Martensens made such a conclusions: ancestors of Kantas are from the village KANTvainė(5 kilometers to north-east from Priekulė. Ancesotrs of Kantas worked in Šilutė and Rusnė. His great grandfather Richard even didin't know German language, because in trial he even used translator. What do You think? - Egisz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egisz (talk • contribs) 12:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Monument in Gołdap

There is a monument to Kant in Gołdap, Poland. It is apparently the place where he spent his longest trip away from Koenigsberg. I have a photo is anyone is interested in putting it on the site.(79.190.69.142 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

You could go to

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/

and upload it yourself. Putting it in the Commons would make it accessible to all language groups in the Wikipedia community. Others really can't easily upload things for you since you are the one who holds the copyright and you have the right to release it. P0M (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Poles put up a monument to a German!!?? What an amazing outcome that would be . . . Oops, forgot, Kant has too many Scottish grandparents to be a "real" German, nevermind that his first language was German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 09:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
If you'd ever been to Goldap you'd realise it needs all the tourism and links to famous people it can get! Actually, Poland has quite a few monuments to famous Germans (79.190.69.142 (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)).


Political philosophy

I thought more comments would be gained if we discussed it here.. the section "Political Philosophy" has a link to the "main article" Political philosophy of Immanuel Kant. That main article page seems useless as the only information missing from this page (Immanuel Kant) is a brief information on EU's critics. I say we merge? No reason for two to be split. --staka (T) 01:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Kant's theory of perception

The article says "Kant maintains that our understanding of the external world has its foundations not merely in experience, but in both experience and a priori concepts". However, they are not mutually exclusive. Experience cannot become experience without an a priori intervention, first through the imaginative binding together of sense data into schema and then through the relating of similar schema into concepts that make experience. I think this requires a rewrite. Torricelli01 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The passage you quote says "not merely (x) but in both (x) and (y)," so it does not claim any components or entities are "mutually exclusive." Bu you probably have a point because "experience" is being used as an ordinary language term and not as Kant defines it as a term of art in his philosphy. What is the right term for the inputs that come in to us and give us reason to believe that there is thing-in-itself that is behind each of these inputs? P0M (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Biography

In the "Biography", the grammar breaks down, at one point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.53.235 (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that Gauss (Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss, born in 1777) is not an example for the advancements of sciences in Kant's age: when Kant wrote the first Kritik, Gauss was at the college... see for example [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo.d.mr (talk • contribs) 18:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No contribution

Kant made no real contribution to science or maths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.53.235 (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC) At least, Kant did not launch an attack on science, as Hegel did with Ceres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.53.235 (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC) See Gauss's attack on Hegel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.53.235 (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Kant did deny modern relativity, but this is inevitable for someone born in the 18th. century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.51.30 (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Kant seems to have been the first to refer to tidal retardation, but this is something of a statement of the obvious. See Tidal acceleration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.34.71 (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Kant is said to have drawn far-reaching conclusions from tidal retardation. He does not seem to have done so from proper motion, referred to in 1718. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.34.71 (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Kant once said that the mind of man cannot conceive of any geometry except Euclidean geometry, just a few years before the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry. (It seems to be a tradition to leave posts to this thread in run-on paragraphs and unsigned.)

Non-Euclidean geometry is merely Euclidean geometry on a curved surface. Kant assumed that geometry was to be practiced on a flat surface, like a piece of paper. The basic diagrams are both the same, allowing for degree of curvature. Lestrade (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

An incomprehensible sentence

The text currently says:

Recent Kant scholarship has devoted more attention to these "pre-critical" writings and has recognized a degree of continuity with his mature work.

I cannot be sure what the intended meaning is and so would not like to contemplate fixing it. "Scholarship has recognized continuity with his mature work" -- means what? P0M (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps those who deeply study Kant's writings recognize that there is a "flow", a consistency in his writing that indicates a maturity in his philosophical thought and in his ability to impart his knowledge using the written word.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  23:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

An incomprehensible sentence in an article on Immanuel Kant. Imagine that! Rick Norwood (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I have never read such a mockery of philosophy as with Ayn Rand and her criticism of Kant. She doesn't understand the meaning and usage of Kant's "transcendental" nor "transcendent", thus she doesn't fathom Kant's distinction between the two which is basically what her criticism is based upon. This culminates in a very distorted, if not emotive, criticism. Certainly not intellectual and new readers and researchers of Kant will certainly be misguided and mislead if putting any credence in her remarks. It is one thing to criticize and it is another to thing to criticize with understanding. If a criticism is to be offered as a reference then it should offer something meaningful. Of course, on the positive side, you can always leave it for those knowledgeable readers of the drab and dry Kant who could always use a good laugh and a little humor in their life. Amerindianarts (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You are not a reliable source for her criticism's lack of notability. Ayn Rand, however, very much is. It is not up to you or me, but Wikipedia and what its policies are. Currently, that leaves with the notable, citable critic getting mention. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that after a week there is only one response. As far as "You are not a reliable source for her criticism's lack of notability", do you know this for certain? And do you know for certain that the editor that inserted the link was a "reliable source". I don't think so, unless maybe Glen Beck told you? You argue like a Rand cultist. Rand has no understanding of Kant and many of her criticisms are nothing more than fallacious ad hominem arguments directed at the man and not his philosophy. This is aside from her lack of understanding of the distinction I mentioned which is spelled out quite nicely by Peter Strawson and which people who do know Kant, such as myself, understand. I have read Rand's criticism. She is a hack. It is unfortunate that you are editing this article at all. But, like I said, all Kant readers can use a good laugh at Rand's expense. Amerindianarts (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
A few points for your consideration:
  1. Please do your best to deal with your disappointment. I cannot speak for all other editors who are interested in this article, but I, for one, have a life outside Wikipedia.
  2. There are literally hundreds of articles that I keep tabs on, and I watch my own Talk page much more closely than any of those, so if you know a particular editor and would like her or his opinion, you might want to add to their Talk page.
  3. I think what editor Dfsghjkgfhdg might have meant was that any claim made by any editor is always subject to third-party sourcing.
  4. I am trying to exercise as much good-faith assumption as possible, but I cannot help feeling that your tone above appears dangerously close to being a personal attack against another editor. You would be well-advised to curtail such similes as "cultist", and using words like "hack" and "It is unfortunate that you are editing this article . . .". There is no need for such inflammatory comments if you want to at least appear civil.
  5. How you feel about any notable person in this or any other encyclopedia has little if anything to do with the content. The reason for this is that there are about as many opinions about people like Kant and Rand as there are assholes stars in the night sky. So please try to stick to WP:NPOV in your edits.
  6. What is so bad about having a good laugh now and then?
  7. Thank you very much for helping to improve this encyclopedia!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  08:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with having a good laugh now and then. Isn't that what I said? The "positive" aspect?
My comment is not even close to a personal attack. "Hack" was a reference to Rand, not to any editor. Who the hell are you to ask me to refrain from my opinion on this page? Cultist is the word I choose.
I have a life outside Wiki too. When I left this article three years ago it was in good shape. No "need to do" or clarity warnings. Look at it now. Everyone who worked on it back in the day when it was a model article has left it alone. No one wants to tolerate the time and trouble of the petty crap it takes to do anything here, and I'm referring as an example to the last edit by editor Dfsghjkgfhdg that I undid. Pure pettiness.
I always stick to NPOV in my edits. I sourced one of the opening statements to an expect in the field (third party source)in a widely accepted publication and it is questioned by someone (editor Dfsghjkgfhdg) with a reference to a weasel word page?
Ayn Rand DOES attack the man, i.e. Kant. Not very intellectual and the distaste for ad hominem argumentation is widely accepted. I don't have too much of a problem with the link, i.e. "Nothing wrong with having a good laugh now and then". I do have a problem with petty edits and there seem to be as many "as there are assholes stars in the night sky".
Seriously, I think you know I'll take your comments with a grain of salt. I see nothing here constructive to the article.
The article is not recognizable from three years ago and it's in trouble. Good luck.Amerindianarts (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Wishing me luck will not improve the article. As my dear departed Uncle George used to say, "Quitcher whinin' and get busy!" Best of everything to you and yours!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  09:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you missed the point. Trying to improve the article would require too much time on this page listening to others whining and tolerating the aforementioned pettiness. Did your Uncle George ever mention anything about the senselessness of beating your head against a brick wall as a part of busyness? Not like you can really jump right in, roll up sleeves, and get busy without all the distractions.Amerindianarts (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I missed no points, however you certainly did. Would you care for some cheese with your wine? Heavens to Murgatroyd, if everyone who edits here were to take on your attitude, nothing would get done. Seems to me that you came here writing like a Muslim among Christians, or an Arab among Israelites. I can understand a certain amount of frustration, for I've felt it myself at times. It would be heavenly if you would try not to take all that pent up anxiety out on your fellow editors. We're all here for the same thing, Amerindianarts: to improve the article. If you have something to contribute, then please do so. And don't get haughty just because I remind you about being civil with each other. There are ways and ways to express your opinion. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks, for which you still have not apologized, then please do get the heck out of Dodge. Most of us come here to donate our time trying to improve Wikipedia. We do not come here to have somebody use inflammatory language and piss us off. I hope I've made this clear this time. You are welcome here, to be sure. But only as long as you exhibit civility toward others (including the notable people who have articles in this reference work). Thank you for your time!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  09:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I find your ethnic comments troubling. And I have nothing to apologize for. I didn't use inflammatory language. I believe you brought the term "assholes" into the conversation so maybe you better reread (or read?) being civil yourself. I think you have a real problem reading the facts. And there is nothing wrong with me stating that there are people editing this article who really have no business editing this article other than watching for vandals and other juvenile and petty editors. This article requires someone with a substantial knowledge of the subject from what I can see it isn't happening. Amerindianarts (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, I noticed a mention of weasel wording in on of the recent edits. It was not weasel wording. It is not so much truth as it is VERIFIABILITY at Wiki. This is spelled out explicitly. One only has to check the reference. It was verifiable and not weasel wording. This is what I mean by editors monitoring with pettyness, vindictiveness, or anything else you choose to call it. The editor that made that comment needs a comprehensive overview of Wiki. The direct quote provided provides the verifiability which was really not needed, especially in a 6000 word article where the space could be better used. Not everything can be said, but everything must be verifiable. So why must we be so petty?Amerindianarts (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This user believes in the ancient classic and epic struggle between WP:Preserve and WP:Burden.
Good question! One's golden grain is another's gooey garbage; one person's poignant perception is another person's pettiness. Thank you very much for your help to improve this article and, in the process of course, Wikipedia!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  09:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Post script: Thanks for your reply anyway. My edit removing the link and first comments here were a goad so I could see who was here and who is not. This same argument concerning Rand and other things took place three years ago when Wiki was absolutely overrun with Rand cultists. I have assessed the situation and will be on my way.Amerindianarts (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, Amerindianarts! Don't let the door hit you in the stars on your way out. <g> Seriously, best of luck in your endeavors, and thank you very much for your help to improve this encyclopedia... in any era.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  09:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I never do.Amerindianarts (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Who?

Read the page you cited Dfsghjkgfhdg . It doesn't apply here. The weasel words are non-existent in the quote with a range as wide as the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If it's in that source then it does have a wide acceptance. Get with the program. Amerindianarts (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely want to say this without sounding patronizing, but I'm not sure that I can. Please forgive me if I can't. Your recent change of wording in the lede is, IMO, a significant improvement. I wish I could say the same for the quotation...
  1. I read a guideline or a policy recently (I'll hunt for it if I must) that counsels us to avoid quotations in the ledes of articles.
  2. . . . has "by no means passed unnoticed among the general public". This "general public" thing has always, at least to me, made a marked "pop"ping sound as it circled the mulberry bush.
I really, truly hated to bring this up, Amerindianarts, because the other rewording you made buries "excellent"!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  15:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The point is that the previous edit was not weasel wording because it can be verified in the cited source and seemed more well suited content wise. It went with the flow. Verifiability over truth. But, I made the change to satisfy the critics and the quote was intended to do just that; answer the "who"? question requested. What would the critics say of the new edit without the quote?
Also, concerning that first edit, it was requested by user Johnuniq that user Dfsghjkgfhdg go to the talk page and explain his edit and why the reference was not good enough. Since you seem to be acting as a mouthpiece for user Dfsghjkgfhdg perhaps you can pass this along to Dfsghjkgfhdg. If they are going to make the edits then they should be accountable when other users request it. It is only fair.Amerindianarts (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) We'll have to agree to disagree about the previous wording. When a phrase like "is regarded as" is used, this is always subject to a reader wondering "regarded by whom?" and should be avoided. I cannot speak for other "critics", to include the editor you mentioned; I speak only for myself. And personally, I have no problem with how you have left it. I'm only cautioning you that it is not perfect, because "general public" is a vague entity. It does not indicate "everyone", but more like "most everyone", and "most" is a weasel word. The quote may very well be challenged in the future. The sentence as it now stands boils down to, "The influence . . . has not gone unnoticed by the general public." Why not just remove that and let the well-supported claim read...
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  03:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
If "is regarded as" was my opinion it would be weasel wording, but it is not. It can be verified in the article and is implied by the quote, which was the essential info requested. Since it is the sentiments of an expert then it is not weasel wording. Verifiability over truth. I think someone needs to rethink their definition of weasel wording and get a handle on the later distinction as well as wording by an editor in contrast to wording that can be verified in a well respected source. I will change the entry but it still seems to me that the "who"? request has become quite inane with its removal, and wasted a lot of time on this page for its justification. Especially in view of the fact that thus far two people feel the reference is sufficient and two people are opposed, one of which whom doesn't have the balls to be accountable on this page.
My last question: if you have been watching this article and are so uptight and picky about an expert's sentiments and the possibility that it is weasel wording, then how is it that this article has gotten in this bad a shape? Exactly what is it you are watching for? You don't have to answer. You may be just watching for vandals and nit-picky things. But someone has sure the hell left their guard down. I know there are other people watching this article, some who are familiar with Kant and I have heard no objections from anyone else in regard to the sufficiency or non-sufficiency of the reference. Just you and that other person who obviously feels that they need not be held accountable for their position. So, actually, a tie breaker is needed, I see no final word on the rejection yet. The shape this article is in requires me to ask for a little more support to give credibility for the objection to the reference's sufficiency. Of course, it may be that no one feels compelled to invest any time on this article simply because of the amount of time that would be needed on this page, which I can understand perfectly. My position is still that the sequence is important, and for that matter each of the philosophers is important, and that Kant was the last of these important philosophers within the sequence within the given time frame, is common sense, a position of fact, and "is regarded as" is non-consequential especially given that it can be verified. Amerindianarts (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I added the "influential" adjective because saying he was "the last philosopher" had an odd ring to it. I am not obsessed with this or any other of the hundreds I watch. Yes, I watch for vandalism, and I have made minor edits. You say the source covered the "regarded", however the coverage was "general public", which was inadequate. In a nutshell, I'm ready to go forward if you are.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  04:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I also invite you to read the second paragraph, which is uncited, and tell me how this survives objections of weasel wording. Could it be that the author felt that there was some common knowledge to it? Should the words "new", "important", "prominent" be referenced? Or omitted as weasel wording?Amerindianarts (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
You've lost me. What precisely is weasel-wordy about "new", "important" and "prominent". If you feel these claims require verification from a reliable third-party source, and they are not harmful to the article, then slap a Fact template on them. Anything else?
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  04:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"Created" is the fattest term in the paragraph. Am I going to request citation? No. I agree with the terms except possibly the usage of "created". The point is their usage is weasel wording if the contested sentence in the first paragraph is weasel wording. There is no difference at all. Hopefully we can get some more feedback before moving on. Amerindianarts (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I re-edited without the quote. I still don't think that it is up to par with the initial edit. That the classic sequence in the theory of knowledge by these four philosophers was "important" goes without saying yet it can be found in the reference. That Kant was the "last" of these four philosophers is a matter of fact. Count 'em. One, two, three, four. Kant was the last important thinker of this sequence. It goes without saying, can be found in the reference, and is right there for anyone with any deductive skill to see. "The last important philosopher of the classic sequence". Not weasel wording. It can be found in the source, if the source is even needed to confirm that quote. The revert was petty and splitting hairs where there are no hairs to split. And I still think that user Dfsghjkgfhdg should reply to the request. Amerindianarts (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This may be relevant to the above - I've removed the statement (by an anon editor) "In terms of influence, it is often said that there are only three towering figures in western philosophy, namely, Plato, Aristotle, and Kant." Although it may be debatable (Descartes, Hume, and Kierkegaard come to mind as alternative candidates for #3), if it can be sourced, it should be kept. Tevildo (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Russell's Comment About Kant

In An Outline of Philosophy, Russell wrote that he considers Kant a "mere misfortune". Should this be placed in the article?

86.42.243.93 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The aristocratic Lord Russell had a supercilious way of dismissing people. In any case, his opinion was highly subjective and not supported by elucidating examples or illustrations. As such, it should be unworthy of mention.Lestrade (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Practical Reason v. Groundwork

A sentence in the introductory text reads 'The other main works of his maturity are the Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates on ethics...'. I was thinking it might be more fitting to mention the 'Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals' instead of, or alongside with, the 'Critique of Practical Reason'. The Groundwork is arguably Kant's essential ethical work, and while it looks nice to have the critiques listed, I think the Groundwork would be more useful and more important for a reader just skimming the intro-text for an overview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.166.213.4 (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence in Introduction

"And so the grand questions of speculative metaphysics cannot be answered by the human mind, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind." End of 3rd paragraph. I'm confused by the meaning of this.Ursus Lapideus (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole introduction is very unclear and written in a pompous manner such to make it unreadable. A newcomer would find it meaningless. Full of phrases such as " the classic sequence of the theory of knowledge " which don't refer to anything universal and even for those who are familiar its an ambiguous phrase. The whole introduction is like this. Leonig Mig (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Influence on Deconstruction

I marked the link to Deconstruction under 'Influence' as dubious as Deconstruction has nothing to do with Kantian philosophy. Except for the fact that Wikipedia wants any editors who use the "dubious" tag to post a discussion as to why, I would not post this section as it seems a stretch of the imagination to assume a connection between these two. If one knows as little about Kantian thought and Deconstruction as say would be provided in a Wikipedia article on the subject, this should be very clear.... --Carlon (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Influences

By reading this article, Kant was mainly influenced by Leibniz, Wolff under Martin Knutze and Newton. Am I missing something, would it be worth while to expand a description of his influences? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


Professor of Philosophy

Is there a reason why, of all the "philosophers" on wikipedia, Kant is the one who is denied that title and is instead merely referred to as "professor of Philosophy"? 188.195.197.70 (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Prussian/German

I reverted an edit to reflect that he is more properly referred to as German.

His birthplace was Königsberg. This was the capital of East Prussia, referred to variously as a German province or state of the German Empire in Wikipedia. It would be a bit like saying that George Washington was not American, but a Virginian. Correct that he was a Virginian, but pedantic and misleading to infer that he was not American.

Also he is referred to as German by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Any other thoughts on this?

TonyClarke (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


Like Coppernicus, Kant was half German half Lithuanian...his father Johanas Georgas Kandtas was born in Klaipeda (Lithuania) and his father's father Hansas Kandtas couldn't speak German at all and also was born in Klaipeda...Kant's mother Ann Regine Reuter was German — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.248.83 (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the philosopher's infobox needs to add a parameter for native_language. For philosophers (and other writers), what language they wrote (& thought) in is quite important. Then we could leave nationality blank & be done with these endless debates on nationality. --JimWae (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Some days ago I changed Kant's nationality from "German" to Prussian. My edit has now been reverted with the "argument" that Prussia was a German state. How is that decided? I am not quite sure how Wikipedia decides which nationality one possesses or not, but I think that their formal citizenship is decisive. The term "German", however, did not mean a citizenship in any way, shape or form, neither within nor without the Holy Roman Empire. Czech-speaking Bohemians, Northern Italians or Savoy also belonged to the Empire but were never referred to as "German". On the other side, German-speaking people outside the Empire were.
Kant may thus have been German in an ethnic sense, but on Wikipedia, ethnicity should be marked as such and not confused with nationality. Kant was a subject of the King of Prussia and hence was politically not German as Prussia was a sovereign country.
If the ethnic German identity played a role on Wikipedia, it would also have to includ Austrians, the people of Luxembourg, Alsacians, and to some extent even Dutchmen, the Swiss and Belgians (f.ex. van Duyse and Blommaert, two Flemish poets who thought of themselves and Flandres as Lower German). But neither Peter Paul Rubans, nor Haydn, nor Mozart, nor Bruckner, nor van Duyse or Blommaert, nor Schwarzenegger are called "German" on Wikipedia, for the ethnic category does not play any role in the nationality Wikipedia talks about.
Kant is as German or un-German as Desiderius Erasmus, Peter Paul Rubens, Gottfried Keller, or Sandra Bullock. No one would call Rubens a German, though, also the Netherlands were thought of as ethnically "nederduytsch" (Lower German) during his lifetime. And he even was -- unlike Kant -- a "citizen" of the Empire. Rubens was Dutch, and Kant was Prussian. It's historical nonsense to refer to one of them as "German" but not to the other -- Orthographicus (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
For Wikipedia the only relevant question is what do reliable sources say his nationality was? Paul August ☎ 21:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, then reason has lost... Because "reliable sources" do exactly what I've denounced: they call some people German and others un-German with no perceivable logic behind it. Prussia was not a purely German state, and Kant was not more German than Rubens or Keller. These are facts whether "reliable sources" admit that or not. If "reliable sources" called Charles de Gaulles Chinese, Wikipedia would most certainly accept that, too. My goodness. Kant was Prussian. Nothing more. Nothing less. -- Orthographicus (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Berkeley and Kant

Unlike Hume - Berkeley wasn't a skeptic. He classified his philosophy as an attempt to fight skepticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flash Fiction (talk • contribs) 12:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Revising the lede

Many apologies for undoing your edits on the lede, but I thought that they did not capture the full meaning and significance of the subject. You wrote "He argued that our world of experience was largely made up by our own constitution and makeup." This appears to be a tautology--that our experience is made by who we are. As I read him, as do many other commentators, Kant argues that our minds structure the world in a way that makes it comprehensible to us. Thus natural laws (science) such as motion are constructs that give us access to a reality that lies beyond perception. If you think the phrasing is still too convoluted perhaps we could work together on it?

Also, I think the entire lede is a mess and does not give a succinct intro to the subject. For example, there should not be any quotes in the lede. We should work on revising it in its entirety. Archivingcontext (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the lead, Archivingcontex! I agree with you about not having any quote in the lede. New worl (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree in the main

Thanks for your co-operative approach here, and I should apologise also for editing your post!

I agree on reflection the intro looks too substantial and does not give a succinct overview. I had edited it some time ago to make it comprehensible, as there were comments that people did not understand it. It has stayed that way for a year now I think. Perhaps some of the comments could be moved down to the philosophy sections.

The wording will need to be careful if it is made more concise. For example, I think I would disagree that (Kant believes) we have access to the world beyond perception. However, he was a bit ambivalent on this. Philosophical points like that would need to be agreed in editing.

I am happy to work with you on this

TonyClarke (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Add Influence of Pietism on Kant

Background

I wrote up a nice section to add to the article on the influences of Pietism on Immanuel Kant. I propose adding the following. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to simply make the addition. Please notify!

  • Where should I put this in the article?
  • Are there good objections to my putting it in the article?
  • How long should I wait before putting it in the article?
  • Does anyone dispute any part of what I've written?

What I propose

Here's what I propose. Before I post this, I plan to format it properly and insert appropriate references as required.

Kant spent his entire life in the town of Konigsberg (Pojman, p. 122), whose culture was heavily influenced by Prussian brand of Lutheran Pietism (Kuehn, pp. 34-38), a religious movement that emphasized an emotional rather than cognitive experience of the divine by stressing the importance of inner religious conversion, personal access to God, and the good moral life (Pojman, p. 122; Kuehn, p. 34). Kant’s own experience of Pietism was mixed. He attended a Pietist school from ages eight to 16, an environment that for the most part seems to have been intellectually stifling (Wood, Kant, p. 4). For example, Kant later recounted his resentment for having to memorize the Lutheran Catechism, which he believed neither he nor his instructors really understood (Wood, “Life and Works,” p. 11). Nevertheless Kant did not react to Pietism by abandoning religious views altogether; on the contrary, Kant would develop his own rich theology, which became the subject of at least a half-dozen of his published writings (Ameriks, p. 26).
How Pietism broadly may have influenced Kant’s ethics is not fully understood. Certainly Kant’s moral thought as expressed in the Groundwork is built not on the inclinations of the heart but on human reason, a theme that stands in contrast to the currents of Pietism (Pojman, p. 122). Indeed, as the title of his Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason suggests, Kant’s approach to God is deeply rationalistic (Adams, p. vii). Yet the personal nature of Pietist spirituality was quite friendly to Kant’s revolutionary perspective on the source of the moral law, which was to be found not in external authorities but in the individual’s own capacity to reason (Sassen). In fact, Kant admired the fruit of this personal piety, which he saw as especially effective in fostering good moral character (Rossi). Kant later recalled,

Say what you will of Pietism, no one can deny the sterling worth of the characters which it formed. It gave to them the highest thing that man can possess, that peace, that cheerful spirit, that inner harmony with self which can be disturbed by no passion. No pressure of circumstance or persecution of man could make them discontented, no rivalry could provoke them to anger and bitterness. Even the casual observer was touched with an involuntary feeling of respect before such men (Caird, p. 55).

Still there are difficult questions on the relationship of Kant’s theology and his moral philosophy. For instance, Kant at times seems to suggest in his early lectures that God’s power to reward and punish can be summoned to supplement the motivation from duty in order to fulfill one’s obligations. How to reconcile this with Kant’s view in the Groundwork that such motivations are heteronomous is a matter of contemporary debate (Ameriks, p. 44).

References.

  • Adams, Robert Merrihew. “Introduction,” in Immanuel Kant, Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: And Other Writings, ed. Allen Wood and George Di Giovanni. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
  • Ameriks, Karl. "Reality, Reason, and Religion in the Development of Kant's Ethics." Kant’s Moral Metaphysics: God, Freedom, and Immortality (2010): 23-47.
  • Caird, Edward. The Critical Philosophy of Immanuel Kant, Volume 1. J. Maclehose & sons, 1889.
  • Kuehn, Manfred. Kant: A biography. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  • Pojman, Louis P., and James Fieser. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2008.
  • Rossi, Philip, "Kant's Philosophy of Religion", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/kant-religion/>.
  • Sassen, Brigitte, "18th Century German Philosophy Prior to Kant", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/18thGerman-preKant/>.
  • Wood, Allen. “Kant’s Life and Works,” in Bird, Graham, ed. A Companion to Kant. Wiley-Blackwell, 2008: 10-29.
  • Wood, Allen. Kant. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005.

Please comment! Thank you.Tylerscot (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Idea of God

This section is totally unreferenced. There is no way to tell what is not original research. It needs referencing and possibly cleanup. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this some kind of joke?

"Despite being raised in a religious household and still maintaining a belief in God, he was skeptical of religion in later life and was an agnostic, though it would be more precise to call him a deist."

So he's a theist, a skeptic, an agnostic and a deist. Reads like a parody of Wikipedia. It's amusing, but hardly appropriate to a serious article on a great philosopher.89.100.155.6 (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the deist part which was unsourced. — goethean 18:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of Bias and a General Evaluation

After looking over this article I noticed several discrepancies with Wikipedia guidelines and instances of bias. While the author(s) did make valid claims in terms of the article’s key points,the lead in section is simply too long for it to be considered an overview or biography. The author(s) sufficiently made note of why Kant is well known and where he lived, however he also quotes Kant, which seems unnecessary for an introduction to this article. Specifically the first quote presented would be a better fit and improve the flow of the article if it was moved to the “Idea of God” subheading in the “Moral Philosophy” section. Next, the list of prominent works is well done, although the subsequent descriptions for each are too lengthy. Finally, the last paragraph is well written and coincides with the aims for a biography lead in section and should be kept.

In terms of bias, there were a number of instances where the author(s) would lead with rather peculiar and sometimes biased statements. The first of these occurrences is found in the “References and further reading” section when the author(s) states that “Any suggestion of further reading on Kant has to take cognizance of the fact that his work has dominated philosophy like no other figure after him”, which not only lacks citation but comes more of an argument or opinion rather than a factual statement. Another example of clear bias by the author occurs in the “Philosophy” when he discusses morality. The statement “With regard to morality, Kant argued that the source of the good lies not in anything outside the human subject, either in nature or given by God, but rather is only the good will itself”, does not provide citation to where this claim originates and also comes off more persuasive rather than stating what Kant believed.

Lastly, the article fails to mention Humboldt as one of Kant's influences later on in terms of the history of nature and the connections it makes in an individuals reality.

Dwk014 (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Unger

I strongly object to this edit by Archivingcontext. The number of contemporary philosophers influenced by Kant is large. As I said when I removed the reference to Unger from the lead, there is absolutely no good reason to single him out. It is simply a piece of nonsense to say that the Unger reference "adds depth to the influence of Kant on contemporary thinkers" - it doesn't "add depth", it gives undue importance to one man. Nor does the lead need "depth" here, it needs only a basic summary, per WP:LEAD. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph under consideration here aims to note Kant's influence in the history of thought. The third sentence notes two twentieth-century thinkers. The fourth sentence under contest here notes contemporary thinkers, one of whom I single out because I had a reference saying as much and happen to be working on this thinker's entry. Given that this is a group effort we certainly should add other contemporary thinkers if necessary rather than just cutting references altogether. Can I suggest restoring the material under question according to Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" and WP:BOLD until consensus is reached? Archivingcontext (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
You added a mention of Unger to the lead paragraph of the Kant article. This can only be described as foolish. The lead should summarize the main point of the article, not promote an editor's personal favorite contemporary author. — goethean 20:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Goethean. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
By this logic you should also remove Weber and Meinecke from the lede, as they do not show up in the article. Archivingcontext (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead and remove them if you wish. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I would rather beef up the body of the article so that it made sense to include these names in the lede, as well as some contemporary thinkers, including Unger. I will have a go at it, and will welcome help in a collaborative effort. Archivingcontext (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no conceivable version of the lede in which it would be appropriate to mention Unger. — goethean 02:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Such unfounded, authoritative statements are not constructive and extremely inappropriate, especially on the Kant pages! We are all involved here in a joint effort to contribute and improve information and knowledge. If you cannot partake in a conversation involving reasoned responses, explanation, and discussion then please do not partake at all. (This type of attitude and remarks are the decline of Wikipedia.) Archivingcontext (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd say Unger is a lost cause at this stage. Though you belittle Goethean's comments, you've provided no substantive case for mentioning Unger in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The case for mentioning Unger or any other contemporary thinker is to show the legacy of Kant's thought in the context of intellectual history. This reason is no different than mentioning the 19th and early 20th century thinkers that are there now. I do agree that this should also appear in the body of the article, which I offered to help undertake. Let me be clear, I am not insistent that Unger be in the lede, only that we be consistent and inclusive--I am trying to help improve the article not push a favorite thinker. Archivingcontext (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be perfectly possible for the lead to simply say that Kant is an influence on numerous contemporary thinkers, without mentioning Unger or any other arbitrarily selected and unrepresentative figure. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Mention of Descartes

I think Descartes deserves to be mentioned along with Hume in the introduction. Kant sought to respond to the major problems posed by both thinkers. Specifically, Hume's skeptical analysis of causation and Descartes' skeptical hypotheses. Kant responds to Descartes' arguments directly in the "Refutation of Idealism" (B275~), and classifies the problems posed by his analyses as akin to Berkeley's. For this reason, I think my recent edit warrants inclusion: "He hoped to put an end to what he considered an era of futile and speculative theories of human experience, while resisting the sceptical arguments developed by David Hume and René Descartes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.43.67 (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's misleading. The point of Descartes' arguments was to overcome skepticism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not misleading. Descartes developed sceptical arguments as a means to investigate epistemology. This is a famous and standard tactic for evaluating epistemological theories. Kant knew this, and so responded to those same arguments. Part of why Kant is such a significant influence is his response to Descartes' sceptical arguments, which began the Strawson-Evans-Campbell tradition in the 20th century, among other things. I don't see why my suggested edit is inaccurate or misleading. It would be a reader's mistake to suppose that Hume and Descartes both endorsed sceptical views, given how the sentence is phrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.43.67 (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The article should avoid content that is open to misinterpretation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
But it's only open to misinterpretation of one doesn't read correctly :/ Catering wikipedia articles to people who can't read seems like shooting ourselves in the foot. It's accurate to say that Descartes developed sceptical arguments, and that responding to these arguments was an important aim of Kant's Critical work. Anyone interested in why Descartes developed those arguments can read his page, which is linked in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.43.67 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator. This sentence as it stands is open to misinterpretation—not to say it is downright misleading. Please do not keep inserting it (as 67.70.36.11, 67.241.184.119 and 69.158.43.67) unless you can properly phrase it and source it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not familiar-enough with Wikipedia sourcing to input the reference in the correct way. I have, however, found a reliable source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental/#RefIde I'm open to discussing alternative ways of phrasing the contested statement. I don't see a real problem with it as it stands, so it seems best if someone else provides an alternative phrasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.36.11 (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

(outdent)This article says nothing about Descartes. This article is a tertiary source citing a secondary source: Dyck, C., 2011. “Kant's Transcendental Deduction and the Ghosts of Descartes and Hume,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 19: 473–96. Have you actually read what the secondary source says? "[S]o it seems best if someone else provides an alternative phrasing": it does not work this way; see WP:BURDEN. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if we're somehow not talking about the same thing. When I click on the link I provided above, the first sentence of the source reads "In the transcendental argument of the Refutation of Idealism, Kant's target is not Humean skepticism about the applicability of a priori concepts, but rather Cartesian skepticism about the external world." About my comment on phrasing, it seems I haven't made myself clear. I think my proposed edit is justified and clear. The principal objection to this edit was that it was unclear. I don't see why it's unclear, but given the truth and relevance of the edit, something needs to be done. I suggested that someone with a better grasp of Wikipedia's style of writing correct the language of the edit so make it clear by Wikipedia's standards - since I'm obviously unfamiliar with them. The comment was not about getting someone to justify the edit, but finding someone willing to edit according to Wikipedia's standards what others think is a rough edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.36.11 (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The important thing here is the Kant wasn't really animated by responding to Descartes' skeptical arguments, which is why you won't find many secondary sources saying that he is. Kant's attention to Descartes (which is relatively scant, compared to the attention he gives Hume, Locke, and the Leibniz-Wolffians) is mainly devoted to responding to the ontological argument and denying the inner/outer sense distinction Descartes wants to draw. Anyway, Kant saw Hume as the great skeptic to be refuted, not Descartes, and he saw Leibniz, not Descartes, as the great representative of rationalism. It's inappropriately synthetic when editing an encyclopedia to reason this way: Descartes gave skeptical arguments, Kant wanted (in some sense) to respond to skepticism, so Kant wanted to respond to Descartes. That's not even good reasoning, because Kant wasn't motivated to answer every skeptic. But even if it were, that kind of inference would be out of place here. Maybe understanding Kant's project as, in some way, responding to Descartes would be a good research project. If it is, go publish a paper on it; don't put it on Wikipedia.2601:47:4200:542:CAF7:33FF:FE77:D800 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Anthropology

As said in the article, Kant had two categories of anthropology: a physiological approach, and a pragmatic approach. Using reason to define human kind, the physiological approach follows biology and empirical evidence. Google defined pragmatic as "dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations" but Kant explains it as "exploring the things a human can and should make of himself." Kant's idea seems to be pointing at a deeper meaning than just science, but the google definition doesn't relate. Any ideas?

Aesthetics

Please FreeKnowledgeCreator, i'm italian, "Poorly written" you said; is there a formal or a content problem? The text was this: As for fine arts matter, i.e. the content a work of art has to represent, Kant remains into the long tradition of Leon Battista Alberti, Giovanni Battista Armenini, Charles Batteux: Art is imitation of nature: "artistic beauty is a beautiful representation of a thing[2]"; and imitation is the research of most beautiful parts of subject to make a perfect and natural whole: "As the agreement of the composite in a thing with its inner destination constitutes the perfection of the thing in artistical beauty judging the perfection of the thing, must be taken into account[3]".
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.58.83.174 (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss#Early_years_.281777.E2.80.931798.29
  2. ^ Critique of Judgment, Chapter 48: die Kunstschönheit ist eine schöne Vorstellung von einem Dinge
  3. ^ Critique of Judgment, Chapter 48: da die Zusammenstimmung des Mannigfaltigen in einem Dinge zu einer inneren Bestimmung desselben als Zweck die Vollkommenheit des Dinges ist, so wird in der Beurteilung der Kunstschönheit zugleich die Vollkommenheit des Dinges in Anschlag gebracht werden müssen

very large criticism section

An editor is repeatedly adding a very large Ayn Rand criticism section in this edit - it is a lot of Internet copy and paste copyright violating content from places such as this - I have asked the user to discuss. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Persondata

I see no reason for Rms125a@hotmail.com to have "deprecated persondata" (purportedly per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Persondata)) without a prior discussion in the talk page. MaynardClark (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Content addition for Criticism section :

Proposal, abandoned by proposer. Closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I intend to add the following content in the criticism section. If any one has any issues with the content kindly let me know so that we can discuss and sort out the issue.


Ayn Rand criticised Kant's philosophy by opining "As to Kant’s version of morality, it was appropriate to the kind of zombies that would inhabit that kind of [Kantian] universe: it consisted of total, abject selflessness. An action is moral, said Kant, only if one has no desire to perform it, but performs it out of a sense of duty and derives no benefit from it of any sort, neither material nor spiritual; a benefit destroys the moral value of an action. (Thus, if one has no desire to be evil, one cannot be good; if one has, one can.) Those who accept any part of Kant’s philosophy—metaphysical, epistemological or moral—deserve it." Arjun1491 (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Kant did not say what Rand alleges him to have said. This is Kant's categorical imperative (not the exact quote), "Act in such a way that each act of yours can be turned into a universal law." It is acting according to a principle which makes an act ethical. Benefit is a word with a long history in moral philosophy, wanting to be good and being good because of one's actions does not constitute "benefit." According to categorical imperative if one is good because being good is one's principle (and not something that one is deriving benefit from in terms of, say, electoral popularity, good press etc) then one's actions are ethical. Only a person with no understanding of Kant could have said what Rand has said and ignorant and opinionated rubbish like this is not called criticism. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


I am a philosophy student and I know what is what, and do not just upload rubbish as you have mentioned. I will give an overview of Kant's philosophy and state why the content which I added is true to each and every word of it.

Metaphysics and Epistemolology of Kant's philosophy :-

The man who closed the door of philosophy to reason, was Immanuel Kant. Kant’s expressly stated purpose was to save the morality of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice. He knew that it could not survive without a mystic base—and what it had to be saved from was reason.

Attila’s share of Kant’s universe includes this earth, physical reality, man’s senses, perceptions, reason and science, all of it labeled the “phenomenal” world. The Witch Doctor’s share is another, “higher,” reality, labeled the “noumenal” world, and a special manifestation, labeled the “categorical imperative,” which dictates to man the rules of morality and which makes itself known by means of a feeling, as a special sense of duty.

The “phenomenal” world, said Kant, is not real: reality, as perceived by man’s mind, is a distortion. The distorting mechanism is man’s conceptual faculty: man’s basic concepts (such as time, space, existence) are not derived from experience or reality, but come from an automatic system of filters in his consciousness (labeled “categories” and “forms of perception”) which impose their own design on his perception of the external world and make him incapable of perceiving it in any manner other than the one in which he does perceive it. This proves, said Kant, that man’s concepts are only a delusion, but a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape. Thus reason and science are “limited,” said Kant; they are valid only so long as they deal with this world, with a permanent, pre-determined collective delusion (and thus the criterion of reason’s validity was switched from the objective to the collective), but they are impotent to deal with the fundamental, metaphysical issues of existence, which belong to the “noumenal” world. The “noumenal” world is unknowable; it is the world of “real” reality, “superior” truth and “things in themselves” or “things as they are”—which means: things as they are not perceived by man.

Even apart from the fact that Kant’s theory of the “categories” as the source of man’s concepts was a preposterous invention, his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such. His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them.

It's implications on Ethics of Kant's system:-

The arch-advocate of “duty” is Immanuel Kant; he went so much farther than other theorists that they seem innocently benevolent by comparison. “Duty,” he holds, is the only standard of virtue; but virtue is not its own reward: if a reward is involved, it is no longer virtue. The only moral motivation, he holds, is devotion to duty for duty’s sake; only an action motivated exclusively by such devotion is a moral action (i.e., an action performed without any concern for “inclination” [desire] or self-interest).

“It is a duty to preserve one’s life, and moreover everyone has a direct inclination to do so. But for that reason the often anxious care which most men take of it has no intrinsic worth, and the maxim of doing so has no moral import. They preserve their lives according to duty, but not from duty. But if adversities and hopeless sorrow completely take away the relish for life, if an unfortunate man, strong in soul, is indignant rather than despondent or dejected over his fate and wishes for death, and yet preserves his life without loving it and from neither inclination nor fear but from duty—then his maxim has a moral import” Arjun1491 (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them." I hardly use the word "rubbish" on wikipedia but what is this if not rubbish? You cannot do a commonsensical evaluation of philosophy as if you are writing an article in a woman's magazine. Philosophy is that which questions the presuppositions of common sense; common sense naive realism (which you assume is the reality) is not something that can be used to judge or evaluate a philosophy. Yes, man is blind to certain things in spite of his eyes and deaf to certain sounds in spite of his ears -- you do not even need philosophy to say these things, the perceptual abilities of our sense organs are limited, this is an established scientific fact. Anyway there is nothing to argue here; wikipedia is not the place for original research. If you have secondary WP:RS which corroborate Rand's statements you can add them to the article, but since Rand is not a philosopher and no journal would ever quote her it is unlikely that you are going to find any secondary reliable sources. And you cannot cite her book as it is a primary source. -Mohanbhan (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I can only laugh at it when you say Ms.Rand is not a philosopher. You must do your research on the subject of philosophy. And just piece by piece analysis of a philosophy is not enough to judge a philosophy. Philosophy has various branches such as Metaphysics , Epistemology, Ethics, Politics and Esthetics. I do not think you have complete understanding of Kant, and it is very inappropriate to say Ayn Rand is not a philosopher. I too do not intend to express here complete philosophy of Kant or Ayn Rand, which takes volumes of space and enormous time. I do not intend to debate about whose philosophy is correct. I can question you about the philosophy of Kant and Ayn Rand to get to know the extent of your knowledge on the subject. In reverse if you ask any part of philosophy of Kant or Ayn Rand I will let you know complete details of it.

However the issue here is the reason for your rejection of Ayn Rand's criticism of Kant. And when I debate with you, I want "your" opinion on it. If you say others say so , then you must let those "Others" debate with me instead of you. Let me know to what extent you understand Ayn Rand to say that she is not a philosopher and I request your overview of Kant's philosophy and why you want to shield it from any criticism.

Every new idea (big or small , true or false) should withstand criticism. If anyone runs away and requires protection from any kind of criticism, it shows the weakness and inferiority of that person. Arjun1491 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You are new to wikipedia, so first read WP:UNDUE, WP:VER, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Your addition to the criticism section will not be accepted if it is not supported with citations from reliable secondary sources. -Mohanbhan (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


Ok, so you don't want a philosophical debate. Fine, here are the citations from a reliable secondary source to support Ayn Rand's criticism of Kant. It is from "Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff which satisfies the rule requirements of WP:UNDUE, WP:VER, WP:RS and WP:NOR

"Kant is the first philosopher of self-sacrifice to advance this ethics as a matter of philosophic principle, explicit, self-conscious, uncompromised—essentially uncontradicted by any remnants of the Greek, pro-self viewpoint.

Thus, although he believed that the dutiful man would be rewarded with happiness after death (and that this is proper), Kant holds that the man who is motivated by such a consideration is non moral (since he is still acting from inclination, albeit a supernaturally oriented one). Nor will Kant permit the dutiful man to be motivated even by the desire to feel a sense of moral self-approval.

The main line of pre-Kantian moralists had urged man to perform certain actions in order to reach a goal of some kind. They had urged man to love the object which is the good (however it was conceived) and strive to gain it, even if most transferred the quest to the next life. They had asked man to practice a code of virtues as a means to the attainment of values. Kant dissociates virtue from the pursuit of any goal. He dissociates it from man’s love of or even interest in any object. Which means: he dissociates morality from values, any values, values as such." [1]

It is not inner peace that Kant holds out to man, not otherworldly serenity or ethereal tranquillity, but war, a bloody, unremitting war against passionate, indomitable temptation. It is the lot of the moral man to struggle against undutiful feelings inherent in his nature, and the more intensely he feels and the more desperately he struggles, the greater his claim to virtue. It is the lot of the moral man to burn with desire and then, on principle—the principle of duty—to thwart it. The hallmark of the moral man is to suffer. [2]

If men lived the sort of life Kant demands, who or what would gain from it? Nothing and no one. The concept of “gain” has been expunged from morality. For Kant, it is the dutiful sacrifice as such that constitutes a man’s claim to virtue; the welfare of any recipient is morally incidental. Virtue, for Kant, is not the service of an interest—neither of the self nor of God nor of others. (A man can claim moral credit for service to others in this view, not because they benefit, but only insofar as he loses.)

Here is the essence and climax of the ethics of self-sacrifice, finally, after two thousand years, come to full, philosophic expression in the Western world: your interests—of whatever kind, including the interest in being moral—are a mark of moral imperfection because they are interests. Your desires, regardless of their content, deserve no respect because they are desires. Do your duty, which is yours because you have desires, and which is sublime because, unadulterated by the stigma of any gain, it shines forth unsullied, in loss, pain, conflict, torture. Sacrifice the thing you want, without beneficiaries, supernatural or social; sacrifice your values, your self-interest, your happiness, your self, because they are your values, your self-interest, your happiness, your self; sacrifice them to morality, i.e., to the noumenal dimension, i.e., to nothing knowable or conceivable to man, i.e., as far as man living on this earth is concerned, to nothing.

The moral commandment is: thou shalt sacrifice, sacrifice everything, sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, as an end in itself. [3]

References

  1. ^ Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 78
  2. ^ Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 82
  3. ^ Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 83

Arjun1491 (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Rand is a well-known figure, but she is definitely not an important or prominent critic of Kant. There is no reason the article should mention her views, per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I request you to justify your statement on what grounds you allege that Ms.Rand is not a prominent critic of Kant. What does "prominent critic" means according to you ? I have studied philosophy for years together and I have added the critic section after quite a thought, and it was not made for any kind of reckless fun. I am a responsible person who knows in and out of both Kant's and Ayn Rand's philosophy. You must leave the matter to the subject experts like me instead of placing hurdles like this. You have said that it should not be added as per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE This is a very serious allegation which requires extensive proof to justify your claims. What makes you think that it is "Undue" and "Fringe" ? I am open for debate, please make an academic debate to justify your claims and it must be your own , authentic and "Personal" views on the subject. And as I have mentioned previously, if you say "others" says so, then I am open for debate with those "others" & you must leave and make room for the the subject experts to handle this. I am looking forward for an intensive philosophical argument from you. Claims without proof are not acceptable. Arjun1491 (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Leonard Peikoff's book is not a reliable secondary source. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP -Mohanbhan (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

` WP:SCHOLARSHIP in its first point says "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". It does not mean a secondary source is mandatory for each and every article, rather "Whenever possible". In its second point it is said that "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Leonard Peikoff's book clearly falls into this category and can be considered as a reliable secondary source. Arjun1491 (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immanuel Kant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immanuel Kant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Rector

Truly beautiful and well constructed article, but no mention he worked as a Rector in 1786 [[1]]. scope_creep (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Anthropology Section

It seems strange to me that this section is so far down Kant's page if he spent 25 years lecturing on said subject. What are possible ways to expand this facet of his contributions to academia as well as highlight it earlier in the piece? The philosophy aspects seem over represented given the vastness of the scope of his work. Maclark19 (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The Scottish ancestor: Thomas Philipp

From the genealogical point of view, the ethnic Scotsman Thomas Philipp has been proven as the Scottish ancestor whose father had acquired the right to be a Grand Burgher (Großes Bürgerrecht https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Burgher ) of the City of Danzig on March 21st, 1621 and who died early in 1626. This Thomas Philipp married the daughter of a Hans/Johannes Cant from Danzig. Another hint to the Scottish ancestry is the fact that Immanuel Kant's family and ancestors were Calvinists. Source: Ostpreußisches Geschlechterbuch, Band 1 http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/lang_de/kurztitelsuche_r.php?kurztitel=Ostpreu%C3%9Fisches+Geschlechterbuch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:8C:4C4E:F700:4D6B:CB93:1EF4:3B54 (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Image

Actually, that's Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743-1819), not Kant. I've since corrected it.

Agent Cooper (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


Also, would people stop reverting it? The name of the image file isn't even "Kant Portrait" anymore.

Agent Cooper (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Immanuel Kant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Spinoza

Spinoza was in the list of Kant's influences. There is not even proof that Kant has read Spinoza.

"It is commonly assumed that Kant never seriously engaged with Spinoza" says an article (http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199354801.001.0001/acprof-9780199354801) which offers an alternative view. Yuyuhunter 16:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immanuel Kant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Immanuel Kant

... is who? We trust in God? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.12.30 (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2018

The part regarding Kant's main thesis in the first paragraph read "Kant argues that the human mind creates the structure of human experience, that reason is the source of morality, that aesthetics arises from a faculty of disinterested judgment, that space and time are forms of human sensibility, and that the world as it is "in-itself" is independent of humanity's concepts of it. Kant took himself to have effected a "Copernican revolution" in philosophy, akin to Copernicus' reversal of the age-old belief that the sun revolves around the earth."

The "that" clause here, in fact, is not helpful for readers to organize and understand Kant's view. Therefore I propose changing it to a list format without changing the content. Furthermore, the last sentence of the quoted paragraph is unclear about what the Copernican Revolution in philosophy is about, therefore I propose a revision as well.

And the new version would be:

"Kant's theses among his works include: (1) the human mind creates the structure of human experience; (2) reason is the source of morality; (3) aesthetics arises from a faculty of disinterested judgment; (4) space and time are forms of human sensibility; (5) the world as it is 'in-itself' is independent of humanity's concepts of it. Kant took his view as a 'Copernican Revolution' in philosophy, akin to Copernicus' reversal of the age-old belief that the sun revolves around the earth, Kant considers his view that human mind is the primary source of the knowledge and experience about the world as a reversal of the age-old belief that the world is the primary source of human knowledge and experience." Rodneywang29 (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Dane talk 03:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018

Popup summary article displayed while hovering over hyperlink to "Lord Kelvin" is a summary of Brittany Spears. 74.95.88.249 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
OP: This sounds like an issue with your individual browser, not a problem with the article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

The second sentence is "Kant argues that the human mind creates the structure of human experience..." "argues" should be changed to "argued". Kant has been dead for 200 years and is therefore incapable of arguing. 128.135.98.207 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

change "Yo deduce all these laws" to "To deduce all these laws" because it is clearly a typo. Thank you. 5.2.159.204 (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Already done with this edit. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Surname Reuter so he has a jewish mother?

Is his mother jewish? The surname Reuter is a common jewish surname? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.184.77 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No, Reuter is a common German surname that may have been adopted by Jews later on. His mother was born roughly a hundred years before most Ashkenazi Jews adopted surnames and started to integrate into mainstream European society. It's extremely tiring to look at some famous persons talk page and see someone assert that they were Jewish simply because their surname "sounds Jewish" to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:69C1:2A00:7DBA:B4B9:25EB:2B63 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Did Kant maintain christianity?

It is claimed in the article that Kant "maintained a belief in Christianity". However the source given does not state this. It should either have another source or be deleted. AFAIK, this statement is controversial, to say the least (and multiple sources are given for the latter claim in this article just one sentence later).Dan Gluck (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The source mentions his "pre-critical, rationalistic Christian orthodoxy", which I think justifies rephrasing the statement to "Kant maintained Christianity for some time." UpdateNerd (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
agreed Dan Gluck (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone vandalized this page?

For a protected page, it seems someone's messed this up. There's a huge-ass photo of a Trump protest at the top of this page. Can someone remove it? 49.77.147.204 (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

That appeared on Captain Marvel (film) recently too, which is also a protected page. Taking the protection line down and putting it back up again seemed to do the trick. I think someone somehow vandalized the protection algorithm or whatever it is. I can't see it on this page any more either. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2019

The first sentence says that Kant "was an influential German philosopher." Could you change this to "was an influential German philosopher of the Enlightenment era" ? The infobox mentions the Enlightenment twice, and he wrote Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment?, but the Enlightenment isn't even mentioned in the introduction. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Kant and racism

Napata102 (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC) There has been considerable work done lately describing Kant's racism. This includes conferences articles and books. I believe a section should be included that simply references these works without entering into the debate . I can do this. I trust no one objects


Napata102 (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC) My proposed section on Kant's and racism: In recent years several scholars have raised the issue of Kant’s racism, notably Robert Bernasconi (Bernasconi, R. (2003). Will the real Kant please stand up. Radical Philosophy, 117, 13–22.) 

Charles Mills argued that Kant did not treat non-Whites as full persons. ( Kant’s Untermenschen in ‘Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy’ Cornell UP 2005 )

Bernasconi has drawn attention to some strong statements of Kant about races: ‘'...humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites. The yellow Indians do have a meagre talent. The Negroes are far below them and at the lowest point are a part of the American people's.’ (Kant as an unfamiliar source of racism’ in ‘Philosophers on Race: critical essays’ eds Ward & Lott, 2002) p.147 .. 'Americans and Blacks cannot govern themselves. They thus serve only for slaves' (Ward & Lott, 2002) p.152

Bernasconi has argued that Kant was the founder of the modern concept of race and the father of scientific racism.

Peter K Park has argued that Kant was largely responsible for rewriting the canon of philosophy to exclude Africa and Asia whereas before Kant they had always been included in the history of philosophy (‘Africa, Asia, and the History of Philosophy’ by Peter K J Park, 2013 SUNY Press )

Another author, O.A.Ladimeji, has suggested that Kant ‘s theories endorsed genocide of all non-white races as a necessary step for the future development of humanity and quotes another philospher arguing that Kant’s racism should be suppressed so as not to offend non-Whites or give succour to racists ( O.A.Ladimeji ‘Charles Mills and Kant’)

If he actually said as much, then of course it should be included somewhere. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2019

Please add that Kant was also a geographer, and lectured on physical geography in the university. he never published anything about it, but his students writings of his lecturs published on 1802 under the name "Physische Geographie", and influenced many geographers for following his "special" geography.

sources: http://geography.ruhosting.nl/geography/index.php?title=Immanuel_Kant https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305748808000613 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#LifWor http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/1a.html 2A00:A040:197:82C8:1DC6:1CF0:3FAA:6626 (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done I added information about his geography lectures and Physical Geography. On that note, I have some quotes of Kant from the "Kant's Geography and Mental Maps" source that I think would be good additions to the article but I'm not exactly sure where to put them:
"Space is not something objective or real, nor is it a substance or an accident, or a relation, but it is subjective and ideal and proceeds from the nature of the mind by an unchanging law, as a schema for co-ordinating with each other absolutely all things externally sensed" (this is an account of space that is in contrast to both the Newtonian view that space is an objective receptacle for which it is possible for things to exist in and the Leibnizian view that there was no objective existence to space and that it is simply the relation between objects - removing the objects would also make the space cease to exist).
Using the example of Newtonian "geometer" space Kant outlines that space is not a thing-in-itself but a faculty of representation imposed onto the external world: "this pure space is not at all a quality of things in themselves, but a form of our sensuous faculty of representation […] for the space of the geometer is exactly the form of sensuous intuition which we find a priori in us, and contains the ground of the possibility of all external appearances". The author explains this "when we refer to an external world we already imply the notion of space by asserting that something is outside ourselves" so space cannot be empirical but must be a priori.
The source also explains that Kant thought there are three distinct ways of co-ordinating sensory data: by space (geography), by time (history), and by a logical scheme of classification. The fact that these are all faculties makes them fundamental; in fact Kant says "Physical description of the Earth is therefore the first part of world knowledge. It belongs to the idea which one can call propaedeutic [i.e. the necessary preliminary study], to the knowledge of the world."
Even if this doesn't get into the article, hopefully it is at least interesting to somebody. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Views on homosexuality

The section was removed after I edited it. I think it's noteworthy to include, although per WP:UNDUE perhaps it doesn't need an entire section. Thoughts? Perhaps inclusion somewhere in the moral philosophy section? Thanks, ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"Kant and Genocidal Racism"

This section needs to be retitled and needs to have balanced sources. Bernasconi is not the only person who has written on Kant and race nor is he the univocal representative of some consensus.

"Genocidal racism" is intellectual xenophobia. It will continue to damage the fabric of critical thought and discourse that should be a value in the Wikipedia mission; accurate knowledge for learning and usage. This intellectual xenophobia from whoever posted it needs to be changed. The sooner the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nshifrar15 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2019: “3.2 Kant and genocidal racism”

This is a request that this entire section “3.2 Kant and genocidal racism” be stricken, i.e. that the section header and its contents be wholly deleted.

Kant was born in the early 1700s: Robert Boyle and others were conjecturing pseudoscientific race theories a full century prior to Kant’s birth, making it unlikely Kant might be be the father of their racist pseudoscience. This entire added section seems scant on corroboration, relying on two authors whose papers don’t seem widely supported by other scholars. Does this place it on the brink of being original research? I don’t know — I’m a little new here, so I leave it to others to determine the level of scholarship required to create a wholly new section making wildly controversial claims about an 18th century philosopher.

If some of Kant’s efforts did echo the pseudoscientific race theories of his moment, however, this might be better worked into one of the existing sections covering his scientific endeavors. While race does not seem to have been a central preoccupation of Kant’s, nor even an easily-discernible topic in his work, with good citations it’d be worth noting where Kant’s worldview and era may’ve influenced his writing, and how his work in the empirical sciences may’ve been sorely out of step with what we know today. To claim he is the father of an entire pseudoscience, however — one with roots stretching back a century prior to his birth — seems like a substantial overreach. This recently-created section seems unhelpful, going so far as to badly misrepresent Kant’s work to the average reader.

66.167.64.114 (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I have only just seen this, for some reason it did not notify me on watchlist: It is quite outrageous as the unidentified proposer is not even a basic Kant scholar. The original edits reflect the current consensus of scholars. There has been many major conferences on Kant's racism, many books published by Oxford University Press and others. I will list some of the many of the references 1. Bernasconi ' Kant as an unfamiliar source of racism' in 'Philosophers and Race' - Blackwell 2002 2. Wulf D Hund: 'It must come from Europe - The Racism of Immanuel Kant' in 'Racism made in Germany' Berlin 2011 3. Lea Ypi: 'Kant and Colonialism- Historical and Critical Perspectives' Oxford University Press 2014 4. Mark Larrimore ' Sublime Waste: Kant on the destiny of the 'Races' in Canadian Journal of Philosophy an 1999 5. Peter Park 'Africa Asia and the History of Philosophy: racism in the formation of the philosophical canon 1780-1830' SUNY 2013

There is even an entire anthology of Kant's racist writings, which were in text usually ignored and left untranslated, see Jon M Mikkelsen 'Kant and the concept of race: Late 18th Century writings' SUNY 2013.

The claims of Kant's racism are based on Kant's own text sometimes his handwritten notes. I am not aware of any scholar challenging them. So when t (what happened here?)

Even Kant's supporters admit his racism but suggest that later in life he moderated his views: see Pauline Kleingeld 'Kant's second thoughts on Colonialism' in 'Kant and Colonialism'. None of the world's leading Kant scholars (including Onora O'neil - whom I know- and who is referenced in the text) deny the racist comments and the only dispute was the extent that these views played inhis philosophical work. I am astonished that the proposer dd not feel any inclination to consult a Kant scholar before proposing such edits. The reference to Boyle is irrelevant as the claim that the 'modern 5 race theory' where races are 'inherent' and contain permanent features with whites at the top, was born of Kant. Kant's views were challenged by contemporaries such as Herder as discriminatory. Frankly Herder and others challenged Kant's anthropology on empirical grounds at the time. Much of this is covered in the references (the proposer did not apparently make any attempt to read the references or he would have known the views were based on Kant's own words). If the proposer is a Kant scholar then give us his identity (he will be held to ridicule by the profession) or if he is not identify any Kant scholar who disagrees with the claim that Kant made extreme racist comments (he will be held to ridicule by the profession). I intend to reinstate and look forward to any comments. ps. I will add an extensive list of references to major Kant scholars if that will help.

Napata102 (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Napata102, since you are autoconfirmed you can edit this article yourself (meaning it's not necessary to open the edit request – although it is indeed best to follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle since this paragraph has now been challanged). An editor's real life credentials are of no relevance to editing, we do not ask people for their real life identity and we try to keep the tone collegial even if disagreements arise. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Napata102 (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC) Thank you ...I was probably over sensitive as the commentators did not address the issues but rather made insinuations about the status of the references (ad hominem remarks) ... something readers can easily evaluate themselves. In my view anyone studying Kant should be aware of the racist comments even if they accept alternative interpretations that his racism did not infect his work. Everyone is made aware of Wagner's and Heidegger's anti-semitism from first acquaintance - to cite a comparison. I specifically did not want to get into the disputes themselves as that would require a disproportionate entry and is way beyond the needs of a Wiki entry. Appreciated Thjarkur. Napata102 (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2019: “Kant — Influences: Swedenborg??”

Please remove Emanuel Swedenborg from the list of influences on Kant. The notion that Kant was influenced by Swedenborg doesn’t seem well-supported academically — I find exactly one outlier professor proposing this — and online the idea seems mainly put forward by the Swedenborg Foundation. AFAIK, the consensus remains that Kant extensively refuted Swedenborg. I also see I’m not the first to challenge Swedenborg’s being listed as an influence on Kant, so unless Wikipedians reached a consensus to include him (and I do apologize if that’s the case and I simply didn’t find it), I’d request “Emanuel Swedenborg” be wholly stricken from the Immanuel Kant article’s “Influences” box.

66.167.64.114 (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The "influences" item in the infobox already lists Swedenborg as "disputed". Whether he should be removed entirely is a question best left for greater discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Second sentence, "Kant argues that the human mind creates the structure of human experience"

Kant is dead. He is incapable of arguing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.152 (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_present TricksterWolf (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"Kant argues that the human mind creates the structure of human experience" should be past tense

Kant is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.145 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You posted the same thing twice on the talk page. I responded above. TricksterWolf (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section

I have added the criticism section by consensus with Govindaharihari who has edited the section I had added. Kindly view history. And there is no consensus to remove the Criticism section which I added.Arjun1491 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add this section in the first place. Please, show us the consensus for including this quote. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 14:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
There was a consensus, but it was done in the user page, not talk page. If there was no consensus why would a person who had removed my content goes on to edit it to fit the page ? And you need to build a consensus to remove the content. One cannot build a consensus every time a person removes his content.Arjun1491 (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Several editors have reverted your edit, because there's simply no consensus to add this quote. You may need to read this. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 15:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Only you and another editor cannot consider yourselves "Several". This situation is like when a person adds a right content such as " 1+1=2 " and several editors remove it saying you will not be given consensus. You have to justify your removal and engage in a constructive debate in the talk page rather than going on a rampage like this. Majority of fools cannot silence a just and right minority.Arjun1491 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Drop the argumentum ad hominem. I don't fall for that. Three editors have reverted your quote. The consensus you're referring to is only yourself. You have yet to show all of us the real consensus that allegedly exists. Could you focus on that? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 15:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I have added the criticism section and anyone who wants to remove it can engage in a debate here and justify their reason for removal. "I will remove it because I do not like it" is not a justification. Arjun1491 (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
You have yet to show us the consensus that you're speaking of. Or isn't there any such consensus? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 15:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


You need to SEE ? well then SEE this consensus which I had with Govindaharihari in his user talk page. And view the history to see his edit of my content for the proof that I had consensus.

Criticism : Content Addition[edit] The criticism content which I added (although bit long) is extremely Important given the scope and range of the philosophical ideas that affects societies and has the power to alter the course of history. This Criticism section is very crucial in order to let the public know about the demerits as well. People have the right to know the negetive side of every issue. At present the Criticism content of "Kant Immanuel" page is blank (with links to few names) but no content. Being a Philosophy Student, I know the importance of ideas (of their constructive as well as destructive power). A Philosophical construct containing the views of those who do not agree with them is very crucial. All the content which I had uploaded (unfortunately removed) had credible sources as references. Kindly let me know your concerns regarding myself adding criticism content to the page, so that I can address them objectively and help build a consensus. Arjun1491 (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


I am new to wikipedia as an Editor, hence I was not able to find the chat section in the article that you mentioned. And yes that content which I posted was a copy paste from the Internet, of which I have given the exact source in the reference section. The philosopher who had criticised Kant Immanuel is unfortunately no more. But her writings are immortal, hence I want to add her point of view about Kant in the Criticism section. Since she is no more, she cant possibly add it herself, hence I have done the job by giving the reference. Is this considered a violation of the copy rights ? The claim of Authorship of another's ideas amounts to copy right violation, but upholding the Authenticity of an idea with giving the correct reference does not violate copy rights. Arjun1491 (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You can not copy paste content here - see WP:COPYRIGHT - Govindaharihari (talk) Can I type the same content myself without copy paste ? Arjun1491 (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


Early work[edit] According to Lord Kelvin:

"Kant pointed out in the middle of last century, what had not previously been discovered by mathematicians or physical astronomers, that the frictional resistance against tidal currents on the earth's surface must cause a diminution of the earth's rotational speed. This immense discovery in Natural Philosophy seems to have attracted little attention—indeed to have passed quite unnoticed—among mathematicians, and astronomers, and naturalists, until about 1840, when the doctrine of energy began to be taken to heart."

—Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1897


The above passage is the part of Kant Immanuel wiki page. The content is of " Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1897, but added by some editor. Similarly can you kindly let me know how can I add views of other people ? Arjun1491 (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Small quotes are ok - your massive quote is not. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Its fine with me then, I will be able to add small quotes similar to the above one right ? Arjun1491 (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


I will be considering your reply as "Yes" and move on to add the content in the Criticism section of "Kant Immanuel" page ( Yes, it will be small quotes. Not massive one as you have indicated me as your reason for removal.) Kindly let me know if you have any other concerns, so that we can speak about it and sort out the issue. Thank you. Arjun1491 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Arjun1491 (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a criticism section, and I would have thought one was badly needed (even though I could not expect it to agree with my view that all Kant's main positions are wrong, some ludicrously so). Seadowns (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Cambridge translations

The Cambridge series of Kant translations now seems to be accepted as standard (although Pluhar's Critiques are respected), so I've revised most of the Critique of Pure Reason refs and would encourage other editors to follow on with other works available in that series. The Cambridge translations are available online through subscribing libraries. BTW the whole of the Prussian Academy's Kant's Gesammelte Schriften is available free in the "Internet Archive", although one or two volumes are misnumbered. Enjoy! Errantius (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2020, re citation needed

In section 2.1 Theory of Perception, where it says, "there is nothing in the numbers 5 and 7 by which the number 12 can be inferred." and that the citation is needed, it is from Kant's 'Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics' in §2. It can be found on the following link, just search for "7 +": http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20306/kant_materials/prolegomena3.htm 2600:8801:3102:9600:FC05:DE88:345:152A (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for pointing that out! —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Kant's nationality

Kant was a Prussian, not a German. Germany did not exist. Besides, his place of birth lies in Poland today.

He was ethnically German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:9540:E00:A12C:ED96:D2A6:8EEE (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Prussia was a state of Germany established in 1525. So it is a truer description to say he was German, rather than Prussian. This issue arises frequently on the talk page, and discussion always has concluded with leaving the text as it is. TonyClarke (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Prussia actually wasn't part of the kingdom of Germany/Holy Roman Empire. It was only ruled in personal union by the margraves of Brandenburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:9540:E00:A12C:ED96:D2A6:8EEE (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Kants birthplace(the former Königsberg, now Kaliningrad) lies in Russia now not in Poland, but that does not mean that Kant was Russian. He was a German and Prussian Citizen. The State Germany does not exist before 1871 but there already was a German nation. For example: Luther wrote "An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation" ("To the christian aristocracy of the German nation). Nobody would claim that Dante was no Italian poet just because he lived when there was no State "Italy".--Frances K. (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Overblown section on Influence

I will add an NPOV to the section on Kant's influence: the very claim that all philosophy today rests on Kant is absolutely overblown and heavily biased towards contemporary trends in Analytic philosophy. Above all, very little reference is given for such bold claims. Please avoid dogmatizing on Kant's philosophy.144.173.242.118 (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Further to my previous, I would like to specify that the claims I signalled out above are overblown particularly with regards to Kant's assertions about the certainty of mathematical and physical knowledge, the very problematic conversion of formal into transcendetal logic, the denial of personal and pre-linguistic experience, the very existence of a transcendental subject. In conclusion, whoever will be rewriting the section on Kant's influence needs to come to grips with twentieth-century historiography on Kant. 144.173.242.118 (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

His birth name was Emanuel Kant

Kant’s birth name was “Emanuel Kant” and should be mentioned in the lede and the infobox.--LeftiePete (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

That could be to sow confusion. "Immanuel" is how he is known. "Emanuel" early in the biog section seems enough. Errantius (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Why would there be any confusion? There are two separate given names. Articles about people typically mention in the lede if someone’s birth name was or is different to his or her known name.--LeftiePete (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
They are just different spellings of the same name: Immanuel (name), Immanuel. Errantius (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Forgive me, I had a blonde moment.--LeftiePete (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Not a problem - and I see your good change to the text. Errantius (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The Königsberg Kant Glass

Simon Wain-Hobson: The Königsberg Kant Glass in Glass Matters 10/2020 (https://e6da2cd8-8c9a-4290-a1af-5364de3b233f.filesusr.com/ugd/e49178_6d5f5f4087bb430897f587a49442ba0f.pdf)

I suggest adding the a.m. article to the Biography and historical context.

Marianne Motherby (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Something's wrong with the reference to Immanuel Kant - there's no "short description"/"summary" that pops up Comment

Hi, I'm coming in from the article "Schema_(psychology)#History" - where it is said that Immanuel Kant is the first to have used the term "schema" in relation to psychology and hence cognitive sciences. But when I clicked on Immanuel Kant to check what period he was from, nothing popped up. So I came over here to see what's going wrong. As much as I know normally there's a pop-up that can be called up and I thought it would show the first paragraph of the article - I thought it was referred to as "short description"/"summary", but when I open the article using the edit button, I see there's a command between accolades at the top named "short description" and in that is only mentioned the name "Immanuel Kant" - I've just added his years of birth and death. Can anybody with more knowledge about these "short description"/"summary" Help out :) ? Thy, and looking forward :), SvenAERTS (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@SvenAERTS: The pop-up that you are talking about uses a portion of the intro of the article, not the short description, and skips the parenthetical matter, which is why you would not see his dates. More concerning is the discrepancy between the nationality in the article and the short description - they should match. I would argue that the dates you added are not needed; short descriptions should be short.
But you say nothing popped up. That's not what I experience. Perhaps if you explained more, something could be diagnosed. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 15:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Intro to be revised

The intro is too wordy and ineffective, "listing" rather than "condensing" in short paragraphs the essential features of Kant's thought. If allowed, I would go on and rewrite it. --86.6.148.125 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

be WP:BOLD! Mvbaron (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Questionable ip edit

here. Review would be good. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Good Edit - Good removal in my opinion. (1) The lede is very long (too long), (2) the removed material was poorly sourced, and (3) I would even like to see more of the 'criticism' paragraph removed actually, because it is cherry-picked, has questionable notability and does not reflect the reception too well. Mvbaron (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

New section for epistemology

Being that we have a section for Moral Philosophy, I am creating a new section called "Epistemology" to include the relevant subsections related to the Critique. This seems like the right move for the sake of consistency and clear organization, any thoughts?KristinaLu (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kjudicke.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

the intro is cumbersome

The intro is lengthy and does not provide the reader with essential information about Kant's life and essential contributions. The info provided must be limited to be valuable. The article also suffers from overblown emphasis: while still an important figure, nowhere are we told that the central tenets of Kant's philosophy, especially that space and time are mere forms a priori of intuition, have been proved false by modern physics. --86.6.148.125 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree the lead is too long (albeit only slightly). Most of what is there does seem to merit inclusion. Possibly the material about his religious writings could be pared back and integrated into a single paragraph on his practical philosophy. (I'm not trying to minimize their importance, only to say that Nietzsche's characterization, for instance, does not belong in the lead.)
It's not clear to me, however, what of significance is missing.
Reference: WP:LEAD.
(As to the claim that Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic, whatever its problems – it's not a doctrine I defend! – could be proved false by physics, well...absent a source, let's just set that aside.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Racism: b/Black and w/White

In the section "Anthropology:Racism", user IP=194.88.250.91 changed "black" to "Black" and "white" to "White", which user:Antique Rose reverted. I agree with the revert, thinking that although this change may be justifiable it needs discussion. It is a current shift in English, but perhaps not accepted as standard. Has it been discussed more broadly elsewhere? I get no relevant hits for "capital Black" or "capitalised Black". Might user IP=194.88.250.91 offer their reasons? Errantios (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that the capitalization of "Black" is justified with reference to the historical experience of slavery and systematic racism specific to the United States.
Definitely do not capitalize "white." Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

#Time and space

Somebody please rewrite the section "Time and space" in English. Errantios (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Kant was a scientist as well

Although he is better known as a philosopher, he also published papers or books on earthquakes, the origin of the universe, nebulas etc. which was cutting-edge stuff at the time, and so he made significant contributions to emerging fields such as geography, seismology and astrology of the universe beyond the solar system. For this reason I would like to change the first sentence to "Kant ... was a German philosopher, scientist, and one of the central Enlightenment thinkers." Thoughts?? Mtmoore321 (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The lead should only contain material supported by the article. I personally suspect there is a reason that Kant is not known as a scientist. But if you have evidence I am wrong, it would be best for the article to contribute the body before modifying the lead. (Otherwise the edit would surely be reversed.)
Thank you, though, for checking in on the Talk page instead of just going ahead and changing the lead on your own authority. Too few people are so courteous.
Cheers— Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, the article does talk about his early work, which was more scientific than philosophical. His first major published work "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Natural_History_and_Theory_of_the_Heavens" was about astronomy, nebulas, rotation of planets, origin of the universe etc., though it also had some philosophical musings.

Accirding to the article, he lectured in geography while it was still an emerging discipline, and made contributions to geology according to Huxley.

I'd guess it's because his work as a philosopher and logician is so influential that it overshadowed his contribution to science early in his career. I guess in those days, in the early part of his career, he would have been described as a 'natural philosopher', but nowadays we would use the job title 'scientist'. Mtmoore321 (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Newton called such a scientist a "physician". Errantios (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

An arbitrary distinction in two world view versus two aspect view.

A number of encyclopedic resources present this allegedly competing versions of transcendental idealism as an established fact. While many Kant scholars take one or the other position, I believe this is a needless exercise in significance. Kant clearly produced demarcation line that separates numenal realm from fenomenal realm; essentially nature in his philosophy is reconstituted as universe, from which it follows that there is only one ultimate reality. You obviously must be acquainted with the language of philosophy to definitively identify what is outside of mind and what is inside of it. And this is where this semantical food fight began. I do not ask you to reconsider one of the most intense arguments in Kantianism as a waste of time. I only want you to share your thoughts on the subject. Thank you very much. Aberk7 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Immanuel_Kant/Archive_6&oldid=1142360369"