Talk:Immanuel Kant/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Aug 2006

However, the knowledge that Kant derived by thinking at a second level about the dialectic of pure reason is critical because without this organizing framework, the "positive knowledge" of the sciences and common sense makes no sense, becoming, as it were, records in a database that no one ever consults because it is not accessible to the manifold of consciousness.

However, calling this knowledge Critique makes it clear that knowledge, far from being a "first thing", isn't logically prior to questioning and to critique, and one major of influence of Kant on continental European as opposed to British-American philosophy is to lower somewhat the prestige of any philosophy, such as Logical Positivism, which attempts to replace first critique with reified elements of pure and unquestionable knowledge which reciprocates its triviality with an unquestionable status that some find attractive.

--Anthony Krupp 17:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "Enligh-lanugage style? Li3crmp 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear: I mean that it needs revision.--Anthony Krupp 20:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Indeed. It suffers from what my advisor says is the Kantian philosopers disease. Jargony and obscure, at best. Li3crmp 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, your advisor says so it must be true. Are there any grownups here? Are we not men? Hasn't ANYONE reflected that the convenience of the charge of obscurity is that its sole referent is the way in which the text reverberates in ONE mind, and that it is in fact irrationality of the first water to, using introspection (an outdated methodology even in psychology) to generalize into a universal obscurity? Is "reification" jargon? No. What's jargon is reification. You can bet your sweet patootie, assuming you have one, that by saying that Logical Positivism reciprocates triviality I mean PRECISELY that Logical Positivism trades off truth for a mess of entities whose meaninglessness is reciprocal to their attractiveness to a certain type of disordered mind, which is afraid, for sexual reasons in the modal case not suitable for mixed company, of language and the word, which was and will be. Spinoza1111 04:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for restructuring Kant article, using some of above excerpts

Currently, following the biography, Kant's philosophy is presented with these foci in this order: moral, political, aesthetic. I would have thought (and hereby suggest) that it might make sense to follow the order of his three critiques and have the following sections, in this order: epistemological, moral, aesthetic, followed by other topics. If that seems like a good idea, much of the summaries pasted above could be used for the new epistemological section. But I am going to leave that editing to someone who knows Kant better than I. (Of his three critiques, I've wrestled most with the third.)--Anthony Krupp 18:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent suggestion (though I might not have deleted the selections prior to the rewrite i.e. I would have left an imperfect article in need of a re-write rather than an article with gaps and lacuna). I suggest that instead of just an epistemology section, it might better be an 'Epistemology and Metaphysics' section as much of the the 1st critique (the analogies, paralogisms, antinomies, ideal, etc.) can also be read 'solving' (deflating, eliminating, etc.) traditional problems of metaphysics. Li3crmp 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I think moving these sections to the Talk page was appropriate, since (1) what I removed was about epistemology and metaphysics, and the section I removed it from was called "Influences," and (2) I moved it here to suggest that it be placed into a new section. Make more sense now? I think your suggestion to call the new section "Epistemology and Metaphysics" is good.--Anthony Krupp 20:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Popular misconceptions section

This is a curious section. It seems to me that much of what is in this section (paragraphs one and three) really belongs in one of the previous ones. For example, the section on the young scholar could contain a statement about these works being rather different in style from the later work, these works' being overshadowed by the Critiques for a long time, and their being reevaluated now by Martin Schoenfeld, John Zammito, and others. The section on the critical work could contain a statement about the difficult style and early negative reception of Herder and Hamann. (Recall, though, the early positive reception by Salomon Maimon.)

That suggestion has been made previously. The intro section on Kant's philosophy will be rewritten to include an epistemology sub-section where these paragraphs will be integrated. Amerindianarts 18:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That would leave the second paragraph about Kant's personal mannerisms. Maybe the section could be renamed, or that paragraph could be expanded. (I've heard the setting clocks by his walks story, also that only when he was reading Rousseau's Emile did he skip his walk that day, causing trouble all over Koenigsberg as a result... Can anyone verify that? It's great.) Also, keep in mind Heinrich Heine's statement about it being impossible to write Kant's biography, because he had no life. (Zammito's work controverts that.)

Anyway, that's my suggestion.--Anthony Krupp 20:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This article was recently tagged by the Wiki Project (see header of this page) as a B-article in need of inline citation. The work that needs to be done involves this. Some recent edits have not. It would be good to go through the article and perform this task to whatever is deemed keepable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amerindianarts (talk • contribs) .

That suggestion has been made previously. The intro section on Kant's philosophy will be rewritten to include an epistemology sub-section where these paragraphs will be integrated. Amerindianarts 18:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Popular misconceptions

Does the third paragraph state that Kant was difficult rather than unreadable, and is it verifiable that it is a popular misconception other than the claim that it is common knowledge among students and professors??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amerindianarts (talk • contribs) .

Difficult, yes; unreadable, no. Second question: I don't know. Sorry I can't help more on that count.--Anthony Krupp 21:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the paragraph doesn't assert "unreadable yet difficult" and if it did then it would not be a popular misconception. Claims of Common knowledge are usually not verifiable, even if true. Amerindianarts 21:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Right; that's why I suggested moving that bit to the previous section (on the critical philosophy). It's not a popular misconception; it's part of the reception of the critical works.--Anthony Krupp 21:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think, along w/ Spinoza1111, that there *is* a popular misconception here: namely, that what is difficult in Kant isn't the subject matter or ideas (or how these are settled) but the *way* these are expressed. Moreover, this leads to a kind of knee-jerk reaction against said views because they aren't expressed as clearly as he reader might want. This seems to have been the case with Harman and Herder (or so Kant slyly suggests in letters are later reviews of others works) cf. Mendelssohn, Reinhold, etc., who appreciating the philosophic difficulties applauded the work not just despite, but because of its “difficulties”. This is also the (juvenile) reaction many university students have upon first exposure to Kant. At least in my teaching experience. Li3crmp 01:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Who has this misconception again? The populace? I'm wondering about the section title in general now (Popular Misconceptions). Will return when I have a better suggestion (Popular Conceptions, Popular Conceptions and Misconceptions, something else entirely). To be clear: the Beck quote is nice, and could be somewhere in the article, like in a section on Kant's critical or later work. I'm just not 100% sure about this section on pop. misconceptions yet.--Anthony Krupp 13:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would then suggest adding references from Mendelssohn and Reinhold. I know of no surveys that would support the positions of students and any reference to common knowledge. Amerindianarts 01:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for one... Li3crmp 02:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How's this: "Stories about how hard it is to read Kant, how one needs to diagram his sentences, how one must count on one's fingers the subordinate clauses encapsulated in other subordinate clauses [this refer to a famous letter sent to Kant, I believe that asserts this very point; maybe I'll find this later], may be amusing, but they are false. Most common misunderstandings do not result from reading his own difficult writings, but from reading sympathetic efforts to simplify them or misguided efforts to set Kant up as an easily refuted strawman. The remedy for both is the same: read Kant himself. His 'brilliantly dry' style (the characterization is Schopenhauer's) requires, and rewards, close reading." From Lewis White Beck, preface to Kant: Selections1988. Li3crmp 02:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about "Prior to the critical turn, his books sold well, and by the time he published On the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime he was known to be a popular author of some note". This book was published in 1764. I always thought that the 'turn' was a little later. Amerindianarts 06:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, misread the sentence, I'm going to bed. Amerindianarts 06:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph above is good. It doesn't appear in my edition of Beck's work. Amerindianarts 07:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Beck quote is nice, but please reread. I'm sure Beck didn't write "do no" result. Make sure the citation is correct throughout. Gruss, --Anthony Krupp 13:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a typo -- I missed a 't'changing 'not' to 'no'. Typing by hand, late at night, etc. I have corrected it. BTW, I don't think the quote should make it on to the article's main page so much as it ought to be a source/citation for a 3rd paragraph re-write. Li3crmp 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: what if there were a section on "Kant's philosophical style"? One could point out that the pre-critical work was generally well received, sold by the page, etc. (Documentation would be necessary, and I'm sure I could find some nice quotes on the early work in Zammito's 700-page study. I've read it cover to cover, and even reviewed it, so it wouldn't take long.) And that the critical work was more difficult, leading Herder to say X and Hamann to say Y. (Hard to imagine Hamann complaining of difficult style...) Whereas Beck says Z (the nice quote provided by Li3). I don't know: how does that sound? Either as an introduction to the several sections (epistemology, moral philosophy, aesthetics, political writings), or as a postscriptum to them.

Then we would still have the taking walks anecdote, but maybe that should go in the section on his life.--Anthony Krupp 15:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

This article was recently tagged by the Wiki Project (see header of this page) as a B-article in need of inline citation. The work that needs to be done involves this. Some recent edits have not. It would be good to go through the article and perform this task to whatever is deemed keepable.

The recent addition by Spinoza1111 does not comply with the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography request for Inline_citations. Amerindianarts 21:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I've caused an uproar, didn't mean to.... We don't require inline citations of any article, though we do require them in order for the article to get the next level up (A). Inline citations is simply what kept me from evaluating it more closely and seeing if it met A-class designation (which means we think it's ready for FA nomination). This is up to you guys as editors (and subject matter experts) of the page to produce and if one person is disrupting this effort then you might need to call in an admin (which I'm not one) to help resolve your dispute. I don't know the history of the page, but if Spinoza1111 is not a regular editor, you can revert his/her additions with the explanation that inline citations are needed and note that no WP:OR is allowed. Sometimes new people don't know the rules and so you can let them know by reverting an edit (but no revert wars!). However, if this is a regular editor, or they revert it back, you need to resolve this on the Talk page.

Perhaps you guys can work on seeing if it can be made a GA and that process will get outside editors evaluating it and then after that, a Peer Review, before taking it to the final step of FA. See WP:CITE for what needs to be given inline citations. plange 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved this addition here for suggestions on compliance. In order to receive peer review upgrading this to an 'A' article compliance is needed. Neither I nor Li3crmp want the responsibility for citing further additions by Spinoza1111. So, Spinoza1111 needs to rectify this problem.

I'll do so when I have time. I thought the references were sufficient. My apologies. If anyone wants to transform the existing references into formal citations thanks in advance. The Donald Knuth paper that makes the reference to Intuitionism is "structured programming with gotos."Spinoza1111 04:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

However, I sense that the original wikipedia vision is getting lost in a reified drive to win a pony in the form of a reified article classification, and I see here in elsewhere where the drive to meet a reified, if not alienated, goal moronizes. A cite-count is set as a goal, and all of a sudden you have to cite authority for things known to the cultivated reader, or at least things that create a curiosity in the reader with an old-fashioned respect for cultural literacy.Spinoza1111 04:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The only thing moronic is to dispute that what has been classified as a "core" article for Wiki and not understand the need to satisfy the WikiBiography Project's request for inline notation required to bring the article to an 'A' standard. Nobody's going to win a pony. Just good, editorial and encyclopedic standard is a stake. If you want to dispute Wiki, or what you consider my authoritarianism, I suggest you request Administrative resolution, because if you continue to disrupt the process, I certainly will. If you want my help or advice, I will try to help, but I am through arguing this point. Amerindianarts 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

But I WANT a pony! Li3crmp 14:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The ceremonies in other words of urbanity are drowned. An encyclopedia article on a philosopher is not just about what the philosopher thought. It is also about the wound, the fissures and conflicts, some of them world-historical, which created the text, and there's nothing between the wound and the text. For this reason I'm afraid that a philosophical article is going to have to "do" philosophy without citing "everything".Spinoza1111 04:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Against Wiki policy-see Wiki on "original work"-it is prohibited. I understand that this makes Wiki a difficult forum for philosophy articles, but it is the policy and this is an Encyclopedia. Again, if you want to complain about this policy, take it to Wiki-not here. Amerindianarts 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I'd better stop. If I have time for this I could have time to do what other people have so graciously done, not for me, but for wikipedia, in creating the formal cites in good faith.Spinoza1111 04:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Kant (cf. for example S. Korner, THE PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS, Harper 1962) was influential in the "intuitionist" school of the philosophy of mathematics as opposed to two other main schools in Korner's taxonomy: the "formalist" or "uninstantiated game with symbols" school associated with David Hilbert, and the "logicist" or "mathematical entities exist" school associated with Bertrand Russell. Kant studies formed the matrix of Brouwer and Heyting's thought in the formation of mathematical intuitionism and its denial that mathematical entities which can't be constructed exist, since for Kant, the creative activity of the human mind precedes existence of phenomena, and noumena have a different form of unknowable-in-itself existence which cannot be meaningfully (or usefully) asserted (or denied). Echoes of Kant reverberate in Brouwer and Heyting's partial reductionism and their demand that existence of mathematical entities is dependent on a constructive proof which excludes the "excluded middle" both in the dependence of mathematical ontology upon its epistemology and the belief that not all logical tools can be taken at face value.

Donald Knuth drew a parallel in 1976 between the (Dutch) intuitionism of Brouwer and Heyting, and its reduction of the toolkit, and structured programming in computer science, where the programmer restricts himself to three "control structures" (straight line code, if..then..else, and do) as a negative gesture in order to arrive at what's understood informally as "clean, understandable, maintainable" computer code and more formally as code from which a correctness proof can be described, whether formal or in the form of an informal, natural-language argument. There were echoes in this "Copernican" revolution in everyday computer programming praxis, which problematized the assumption of the existence of a "correct" computer program in the absence of known bugs and which took the limitations of the knower-programmer into account, and which demanded a constructibility as a precondition for acceptance, of "Kantian humility", the gesture of sacrificing an Archimedean position as a knower who, from a standpoint outside the known, could be presumed to be *alles-weisen* and a Mr. Know-It-All by default and in principle. Indeed, the computer scientist who "discovered" structured programming, Edsger Wybe Dijkstra, was so well-educated in an educational system in which the position of Kant was taken more seriously than in England or America that his works contain this "Kantian" humility, the gesture of deliberately taking one's limitations into account to increase the security of the foundations of what is known, as well as an insistence upon coherence that paradoxically made Dijkstra's writings so self-reflexive that their "writing style" is what the superficial reader complains about, usually in the absence of anything better to say.

Kantian thought also influenced the founders of mathematical intuitionism, the philosophy of mathematics which (1) rejects an axiom of the excluded middle, and (2) demands proof by construction. Mathematical intuitionism arose in response to naive set theory which assumed that "sets" of any description such as "the set of all sets which do not include themselves" must exist and keeping to a Kantian spirit of reducing unfettered ontology to an ontology integrated with epistemology, the Intuitionists reduced the scope of knowledge claims in mathematics.

This pargraph can be retained because it can be sourced, as soon as I can dig out some old Hintikka articles on Kant and Aristotle. I do not know why user Spinoza1111 continues to provide uncited material despite being referred to Wiki policy, e.g.WP:CITE but I intend to start a complaint process against him. Amerindianarts 16:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

amerindianarts, kemo sabe, you are an idea vandal and a thug. Citation is appropriate for information likely to be challenged and an informed effort to explain Kant and thus serve the reader has Kant himself as an implicit "cite". The mathematical intuitionism link is well-known. The ignorance of the learned, their willed self-moronization, shouldn't control. I'm going to complain about you.Spinoza1111 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you should complain. I have already lodged a complaint about your refusal to comply with Wiki standards and you will need to defend yourself. Amerindianarts 23:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You should review the policy beginning at WP:CITE, and then review all edits made to the influence section which are provided with inline citation of the sources. The rule is simple-If you read it, you can cite it. Is this a problem for you. It is intended to represent the verifiability required by Wiki and prevent edits which are plagaristic. Amerindianarts 23:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Spinoza1111, I am not sure why you have a problem with how the influence page stands in regard to matematical intuitionism. It is currently mentioned in the influence section, and it is linked to other wiki articles on mathematics as well as cited. It does not go into detail, but that is not necessary for an article on Kant, that would be the work of an article on Kant and Mathematics, something surely worth creating. If there is something incorrect about the content then that is worth noting. --Gottg135 00:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Influence

I have made some changes to the influence page with the hopes of making it more relevant and and a bit clearer. I'm am not satisfied with the Schopenhauer bit so please help if you can. The last paragraph about Marx, Freud, Durkheim and Chomsky I have not touched, but I find it vague, and my hunch is that it is inaccurate. For example, I am not aware of Chomsky ever aligning his theory of the mind or grammar with Kant--Kant is not an innatist. I plan to add some citations and clean it up some more. I recognize the influence section is a bit longer than before, not sure if that is a problem.--Gottg135 06:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I contacted the user who I think wrote the Schopenhauer paragraph and asked for citation help, but they have not replied. I will do it if they don't. You are right about Kant not being an innatist and it is good to have an editor who realizes this (much arguent here and elsewhere). Clarification, etc. is not a problem. I just ask that all new additions be well cited if they make a claim. See below (light grey paragraphs) for former paragraphs of the Influence section that were moved here for revision. Amerindianarts 06:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this statement " Debates in philosophy of psychology and cognitive science are turing to Kant in order to uncover the mysteries of the mind" requires citation referencing for authority. Also, "Hegel was one of the first major critics of Kant's philosophy. Hegel thought Kant's moral philosophy was too formal, abstract and ahistorical. In response to Kant's abstract and formal account of morality, Hegel developed an ethics that considered the "ethical life" of the community." It is well known, but if you read it, you can cite it.Amerindianarts 06:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, in your edits of the Schopenhauer paragraph you rewrote "Things in themselves are neither the cause of our representations nor are they something completely beyond our access." It is not clear whether you mean this is a criticism of Kant by names mentioned, or if it's Kant's position. Some would argue (phenomenologists, existentialist, and some philosophers of language) that it is Kant's position. Amerindianarts 12:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a tiny comment here, in the influence section is the line: "many British and American philosophers have preferred to trace their intellectual origins to the sober-minded Hume" Whilst I have no objection to the meaning of the sentence on the whole, I think it mis-portrays hume to call him sober minded. It would not affect the information that the sentence provides about kant if the adjective was removed. Unfortunatly the sentence has a citation from Ayer's language, truth and logic and I don't have a copy of that handy so I can't check if it's a major point of Ayer's somewhere that hume is sober-minded relative to kant. Would somebody more knowledgeable about Ayer's work be willing to clarify this? I know the point sounds pedantic, but I read the entire article and for some reason I found this line really irritating. Perhaps because of the implicit insult to Hume. Eldritchreality 00:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit was made by User:Gottg135, so perhaps you can ask them. I don't have Ayer handy either, but I don't know how you can find sober-mindedness as a criticism or humiliation of Hume. I would interpret it as somewhat of a compliment. I have also read the comparison and reference of "sober-mindedness elsewhere. If the quote from Ayer is incorrect, then it can be removed or changed as POV. Otherwise, because it agitates a single reader is not a cause for alarm or change. Amerindianarts 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I searched the index for every page that referred to Hume and did not find any use of the adjective "sober." I will try again. As a native of the British Isles, it seems natural that Ayer would think in terms related to alcohol, but, in this case, I can't find any such wording.Lestrade 01:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I really don't think that the reference, if made by Ayer, is a reference to an alcohol induced state of mind. I have read the reference to Hume as sober-minded somewhere other than Ayer, and it is a reference to Hume's groundedness in explaining the psychological in relation to phenomena. Amerindianarts 01:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Gottg135 doesn't appear to be current. The reference to Hume as sober minded is a common reference, and I don't know if what I read originated with Ayer. SO, rather than reread everything I've read in this regard I prefer to play it safe and remove the reference as possible POV, but not because someone may find it offensive. Amerindianarts 01:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I admire everyone's commitment to the quality of the article, I would like to make the suggestion that including the reference of Hume as sober-minded is not so much a possible POV as it is simply a description of his mental talents. I mean, we're calling him sober-minded, not sober. My guess is that there are most likely more extreme examples of possible POV value judgments in this and other related articles, and I don't think it would truly violate any policies nor the purpose of an encyclopedia to keep it. This post is more intended to redirect energy and discussion of the article - I don't want to see anyone get bent out of shape. - Sam 04:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree and if you want to reinsert it I would not object. I see nothing wrong with describing Hume as sober-minded. Amerindianarts 04:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to state that Kant influenced Rand by showing exactly what NOT to be?70.151.125.19 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099

Edmund Burke

Most discussions of the sublime link Edmund Burke and Kant[1]. Particularly A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. The Burke article mentions Kant but not the other way around - is there any reason for this?--Mcginnly | Natter 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sections on his philosophy are for just that--Kant's Aesthetics. If you want to do a section on Burkr and Kant I suggest taking it to Sublime (philosophy), or aesthetics, but not here. Amerindianarts 13:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to glance at the Wiki article Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime.Lestrade 00:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Kant in the classroom

This is just a gush: this link is great! Very interesting stuff! Just thought I'd share that. (I'll be teaching Kant's notes on pedagogy this fall, along with the standard short essay, What is Enlightenment?, and passages from the Third Critique.)--Anthony Krupp 01:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

When you teach from the 3rd Critique, you may want to call attention to Kant's concern with mistaking images in the head for objects outside the head. In other words, mistaking the subjective for the objective. That just may be the main underlying concern in his three critiques.Lestrade 12:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

"What makes error possible is therefore the semblance by which the merely subjective is mistaken in judging for the objective." (Logic, Introduction, VII) This is the sentence that explains why Kant wrote a critique of judgment, which is otherwise difficult to justify or explain. It also basically underlies both of the other critiques.Lestrade 13:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Kant's university degree

It is kind of messy about Kant's university degree, it's known that he received his doctorate degree in 1755, but his "major subject" (in a modern sense) was a debate, I saw various sites claims that he studied physics and mathematics, some says philosophy or even theology. Can somebody clarify this?

Kant studied all of the above and more. In those days a scientific education was very broad and encompassed several fields of study that we know think of as seperate.

Kant also made several contributions to physics/astronomy- he is supposed to be the first who came up with modern ideas of planet formation, and he also discovered other things relating to planetary motion that I feel the need to look up and put in the article. Paladinwannabe2 18:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The information I think is in Goldwaite's intro in the Sublime and Beautiful. Kant formulated the theory on rotation but was only later put into use by another theorist. Please remember to cite your sources. Kant was the first to formulate the theory, but by all indications the theorist who put it into practice (the name slips my mind), arrived at the theory independently of Kant. The article must read this way.Amerindianarts 18:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

bio. sentence

What if we substitute a sentence, so that instead of this:

"Monetary gain and the excitment of the grand stage are, as you know, not much of an incentive for me....My great thanks, to my well-wisher and friends, who think so kindly of me as to undertake my welfare, but at the same time a most humble request to protect me in my current condition from any disturbance."

it reads instead like this:

"Any change makes me apprehensive, even if it offers the greatest promise of improving my condition, and I am persuaded by this natural instinct of mine that I must take heed if I wish that the threads which the Fates spin so thin and weak in my case to be spun to any length. My great thanks, to my well-wisher and friends, who think so kindly of me as to undertake my welfare, but at the same time a most humble request to protect me in my current condition from any disturbance."

I thought this sentence might be added, because otherwise the reference to the "current condition" seems a bit unprepared.--Anthony Krupp 06:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I was against the addition to begin with in its entirety and think it should not be added at all. The reason given for the addition was it reflected Kant's moral character which is not a prescription for a good bio at Wiki. The quote was too long, with info that really isn't unnecessary and smacks of non-NPOV, which has been a criticism of this article by many users. The bio info is getting too lengthy and the article is sadly deficient in regard to Kant's thought and the content of his writing. Amerindianarts 07:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a good point. Maybe I can help in some respect regarding the latter point, but it will be a few weeks. (I'm finishing a chapter on Christian Wolff, and am teaching Lessing, but Kant will be on my plate for Sept/Oct. Will be teaching the essay on enlightenment and the notes on pedagogy, and may be able to say something cogent about both for this article.)--Anthony Krupp 07:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am working on an epistemology section. I think the bio section needs better citation, but I have read everything but his bio, so I have no sources handy. It will also be awhile before I have any time to do anything. I also think that the bio section should be moved to the top and be first with his philosophy and subsections following (didn't you make this suggestion some time ago?)Amerindianarts 07:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds great. I'll look forward to seeing the epistemology section (I assume involving the First Critique). I might be wrong, but it seems currently like the intro section on "Kant and his philosophy" refers a lot to just the First Critique, privileging that over other texts. I think that can be fixed by having a separate section on the First Critique/epistemology (and moving some of the current intro material to that new section), followed by existing sections on moral and aesthetic philosophy, i.e., Second and Third Critiques. Bio. material at the top sounds good to me, too. I'll let you handle it as you wish, though. I'd rather help edit than write most of this. But as I said, I'll be glad to write something in a few weeks on either the essay on enlightenment or on the pedagogy notes. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 16:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Amerindianarts 19:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there is probably good reason for the absense of an epistemology section and the favoring of the section on "Kant's philosophy". If we consider Abbott's remarks that he used the first edition because of the apologetic nature of the second edition as valid, then a comparison of the two editions should be forthcoming, but to do so descriptively may present non-NPOV (i.e. the apology) and to do so in detail would be very lengthy. Thus, generality as a guide to key concepts may be the answer. One good example is the handling of the "transcendental object" in the transcendental deduction of the first edition and the restatement in the second edition. Amerindianarts 22:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved this conversation here from my talk page, appropriately. This new user (AdamBiswanger1) seems to have no respect for a user's requests regarding their own talk pages.

Hi there. I must say that I disagree with your shortening of the quote. The section you removed, though long and seemingly superfluous, is in effect a summary of his personality and life, and to remove it to merely comply with a guideline seems illogical to me. What do you say we put it back? AdamBiswanger1 04:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The info deleted was unnecessary, and pretty trivial. The info in general is really not necessary, being directed towards his moral character. This is not NPOV. The Kant bio info is really sufficient as it is, if not too lengthy and in need of further trimming (and inline citation for what is already there). More space needs to be directed towards his writings and thought. Your stated purpose for the quote is to reflect his moral character, and this is not prescribed at Wiki. If you have questions see Wikipedia:Academic_and_artistic_biographies, the sections on Purpose and Pitfalls. Thus, we won't put it back, and what is left is a gift. Please direct further inquiries to the appropriate article talk page. Amerindianarts 04:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I will respond here because a message on the talk page will likely be ignored. Unfortunately, you seem to be misguided as to the nature of biographical articles. It is a common and obviously needed practice to describe the personality and character of the subject; it is a practice that need not be explained and rationalized because it is in such widespread use, and for such an logical and self-evident reason. See the "personality" section of the Einstein article or sentences like this: "Beethoven quarrelled, often bitterly, with his relatives and others (including a painful and public custody battle over his nephew Karl); he frequently treated other people badly. He moved often and had strange personal habits, such as wearing dirty clothing even as he washed compulsively. Nonetheless, he had a close and devoted circle of friends his entire life." The quote I included is not trivial, and, being that you seem to be interested philosophy, I am confused as to how you see his moral character irrelevant to his work, especially Critique of practical reason. Biographical articles are not simply documentations of a subject's output. If you feel the need to write more about Kant's work, by all means do so, but I am unclear as to how one of Kant's quotes can be considered to be pushing a point of view. Perhaps that is a catch-all objection? Now I ask that you please do not practice ownership of this article, and please do not present essays as authoritative guidelines. That essay to which you refered holds no weight in my opinion and it has received minimal attention. If you would like, I would be interested in a guideline that prohibits, or even implies disapproval of information on a subject's personality. Please stay with the article as I seek a consensus outside of our discussion. AdamBiswanger1 14:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said. Please direct your comments to the appropriate talk page where your edit is already receiving attention. I am moving these comments to that appropriate place and they will be deleted from this page. After all, that is what the article talk pages are for. Any further comments to this page will be ignored/deleted. Amerindianarts 19:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I respect you, and I respect what you are doing, but I think it would be more helpful to respond to my comments than to exert a mild attack in reminding me where the comments go. AdamBiswanger1 19:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care. THIS is the appropriate page. Amerindianarts 19:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In regard to your reply, I cited a proper source. While it is only a prescription of academic bios, there is nothing that contradicts Wiki policy. Since the Bioproject has rated this article as "B" quality, their prescriptions will be adhered to in order to bring this article to "A" quality. Amerindianarts 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Edited quote per discussion with Anthony Krupp. I still believe that it is too long and contains extraneous content. Quotes this long usually require their own, indented paragraph. Amerindianarts 19:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Baumgarten and Aesthetics

Provided a secondary source citation for the claim made here, even though the claim is not fully verified (Aesthetica was left unfinished, so while Baumgarten's work may have been "monumental" and working toward a unified theory, the jusification for a "fully integrated philosophical system" may be begging the question).The original statement was "Kant was one of first", not "Kant was the first", thus the Baumgarten entry is superfluous here and would be better received in his article, or perhaps a History of Aesthetics. The current section is not a History of Aesthetics, and is intended for Kant's aesthetic thought. If this entry is to remain it shouldn't be allowed to open the flood gates for additions on Burke and other figures in the history of aesthetics. Amerindianarts 13:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that citation; I added it in somewhat of a rush. Given what you're saying, I think it could actually either be removed or nuanced; let me think about adding something later when I have a chance to reread the Third Critique and see what Kant is doing vis-a-vis Baumgarten. I do think that something about Wolff and Baumgarten would be important to have, since Wolff's was the reigning discourse in Germany into the 1750s. I understand that Kant continued to use Baumgarten's Metaphysica in his lectures even after awakening from his dogmatic slumber. In short: feel free to remove this addition for now, and maybe I'll propose more later.--Anthony Krupp 15:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me do some research and read Baumgarten's entry in the EOP for further support for the claim. I realize Baumgarten actually coined the term "aesthetics" and unified Wolff, but it does seem to conflict with the later claim of "fully integrated philosophical system". There are no direct references to Baumgarten in the COJ. Bernard's intro references him once, and then again in the notes for para. 15 where Kant presumably alludes to Baumgarten (or Meier's notes) and the identification of perfection with beauty if it is conceived in a "confused" manner. Amerindianarts 16:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I retained the Baumgarten reference but expanded the note for clarification. Hopefully this establishes a precedent for the inclusion of other figures into this section. Amerindianarts 20:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Links post

I inserted what I now take to be a vanity post in the "external links" section. I've since deleted it. Apologies. (I'm new here...) Normanfrench 01:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Kant's racism and anthropology

Is there any reason as to why Kant's (explicit, repeatedly stated) racism has not been mentioned in the article? Is there any reason as to why each mention of it that has been proposed has been erased from the article (no matter how well demonstrated with quotations, or how salient to a significant part of his work, such as (e.g.) his works on anthropology)? Yes, there is a reason, and the reason is this:

You fools are only interested in flattering Kant, not in writing an accurate, historically correct, or textually responsible summary of his work.

You sit around taking the average of wrong answers, and polishing these absurd (and exceedingly abstract) praises of his work, without any close scrutiny of how these praises relate to the primary sources. The supposed NPOV is simply "a consensus taken among flatterers". Taking the average of wrong answers will simply produce another wrong answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.62.101.65 (talk • contribs) .

An unsigned comment? No guts? While it may be that Kant made remarks that can be considered ethnocentric, it remains highly questionable and an assertion of POV that he was racist. Consideration is required as to what "racism" is. How is it defined? How was it defined today and in terms of historical context? What may be considered a racist comment today does not necessarily mean that, given historical context, it was. To define racism today in terms of events of the eighteenth century is to be quilty of what anthropologoists term "temporal distancing". For example, anthropologists of the Victorian era used terms like "savage" and "primitive" in a manner that was considered technical for the age, and may be unfairly criticized in terms of today by those ignoring historical scope and context.

There is a difference in ethnocenticism and racism also. To criticize another ethnic group absent of hate is different from stating that a racial group should be deprived of any given opportunity to better itself, which is the core of racism. Kant never did this. The purpose of governments was to raise the consciousness and intelligence levels of ALL peoples, such that they are not just "civilized", but are "cultured".

The entire paragraph is nothing but opinion and will be reverted as such. Amerindianarts 17:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that a paragraph on Kant's anthropology (expressed in his book of that title as well as in a number of essays, including ones on human races) would be a good addition to this article. But that paragraph must be balanced, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. Childish rants about other editors being teenagers, etc., will not lead anyone to WP:Consensus. Also, referring to other editors as fools counts as incivility. This is bad in itself, and can get you blocked from editing. Try to be civil, 202.62.101.65. Have a nice day. -Anthony Krupp 17:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think it would be a good addition, properly written. Kant's anthropology is, however, like the Logik, in principle a restatement of the first Critique's doctrine of elements. Drawing parallels between racism today and racism then is highly controversial and likely to be tainted and opinionated. An example can be found at (http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Germany/kant.htm), which was added to this article but reverted as a copyvio. Copyvio aside, this article is an example of historical distortion and is in itself ethnocentric with racist tendencies. It violates the tenants of anthropological objectivity, etc, and skews Kant's terminology to fit its own needs. The addition of a paragraph on this subject is not an easy task, but it must and will adhere to the policy of the Wiki bioproject for important and core bios, and the need of citation for FA quality (if this policy is followed in order to accurately portray Kant's thought as prescribed, and those with their own prejudices feel it is flattery-so be it-criticism of someone's thought is almost always controversial).

Anyone thinking of Kant as racist probably hasn't read the Idea of a Universal History with any degree of comprehension. Amerindianarts 18:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The participants in this forum have aptly demonstrated how true and fitting my earlier comments were:

Did any of you read the article that the paragraph on racism linked to before deleting it? No, evidently not.

Did any of you follow up the references to the primary source texts to consider the evidence before deleting it? No, evidently not.

Instead, behaving like the swarm of imbecile, teenage pretenders to editorship that you are, you all simply struck it from the record, and offered a few well-rehearsed (knee-jerk) justifications as to why Kant's explicitly stated racism and racialism were not to be mentioned --in brief, because this was too unflattering to the man's memory! And now you all pat each-other on the back and reflect that I must be ignorant of the source texts to hold a contrary opinion (that is, in fact, based on direct quotations from the source texts)!

YOU SHOULD TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE QUOTATIONS FROM KANT COLLECTED IN THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE:

http://www.msu.edu/~hacheema/kant2.htm

IF YOU WISH HAVE YOUR OPINIONS RESPECTED AS SCHOLARS YOU MUST CONDUCT YOURSELVES LIKE SCHOLARS, AND WORK ASSIDUOUSLY FROM THE PRIMARY SOURCE TEXTS.

Instead, in less than 24 hours, you deleted any mention of Kant's avowed racism --without considering any of the evidence, but simply asserting your own ill-informed judgements (made on the basis of some texts but not others, and some parts of certain texts but ignoring other...) and erased it from the record.

This method is neitehr an open, free debate of ideas, nor responsible scholarship working from a text, and seeking to accurately reflect, analyse and encapsulate the historical significance of that text --it is instead nothing and I regard its value as nil. You are a pitiable claque of fools, and I am polluted by even being in your presence through the remote agency of this miserable computer terminal.

Another gutless, unsigned entry which has obviously ignored the opposite case. Your original entry was POV and poorly written.Amerindianarts 14:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Give up, already? Wikipedia editors, especially the academic variety, may be politically correct and ignorant, but they can be outsmarted if you use the right approach. Try catching flies with honey instead of vinegar.Lestrade 12:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

This comment would be good if it made any sense, constructively. Read the tag at the header here and follow the links to relevant Wiki policies- then determine who is politically correct and ignorant. Amerindianarts 14:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Lestrade, regarding your comment on academic editors being pc and ignorant: please review WP:CIVIL and refrain from such attacks. Have a nice day. -Anthony Krupp 18:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My comment was intended as a description of a factual situation, not as a judgmental evaluation. Political correctness is an attempt to minimize offense to racial groups. Ignorance is lack of knowledge. The above-mentioned web reference http://www.msu.edu/~hacheema/kant2.htm describes Kant's racism. I have encountered Kant's racism several times in my reading of his works. Academics tend to be politically correct as a result of the economic need for universities and colleges to inclusively admit students from a wide range of backgrounds. Lestrade 23:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Just the facts? What is considered racism today was not at all racist in Kant's time. I cannot believe how this simple anthropological tenant is disregarded and distorted by casual readers as well as some academics. The problem is a lack of coevalence is tranlating concepts as they were synchronically over a period of time (diachronic time) to what is in sync with current standards. This is if Kant's comments were actually racist. That is POV. I think they were not. Some one else may think they are. I believe it erroneous, given his text and time period to describe it as racist. Kant does not recommend that any race should be deprived of an opportunity to better itself. He does not write with connotations of hate. You should probably not rely on secondary sources on this subject and read Kant himself, especially The Idea of a Universal History. Kant's purported racism is POV, it is criticism relying on secondary opinion, and its inclusion must be carefully written according to Wiki policy and describe his anthropology, without referring to racial connotation or slur. Those are the facts.Amerindianarts 00:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Father Labat reports that a Negro carpenter, whom he reproached for haughty treatment toward his wives, answered: "You whites are indeed fools, for first you make great concessions to your wives, and afterward you complain when they drive you mad." And it might be that there was something in this which perhaps deserved to be considered; but in short, this fellow was quite black from head to foot, a clear proof that what he said was stupid.

— Immanuel Kant, Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime, Section Four.

Kant, the authority on general and transcendental logic, demonstrated here a "clear proof" that might be considered to be racist in 1764, when it was published, as well as in 2006. The above quote is not a secondary source.Lestrade 01:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

And this shows racism how? Does it imply that the individual should be deprived of the opportunity to improve himself, which is one basic tenant of racism. Deprivation of opportunity based on race, and hate. An ethnocentric comment implying that a man was black and therefore stupid, does not at the same time imply hate and deprivation of bettering theirself. "Racism" itself is an ambiguous term to define. I believe your "clear proof" is based on a faulty syllogism. Valid maybe transitively, but not sound. Sorry. This is not clear proof that it qualifies as a synchronic concept of racism for that period in history either. Maybe today, not then. Amerindianarts 02:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If Kant can say that the color of a man's skin clearly proves that he is stupid, and you can say that Kant is not a racist, then we have absolutely no common ground for discussion. We will let Shakespeare have the last word, as he did in Love's Labor's Lost, V,ii: "You that way — we this way."Lestrade 02:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

What?? Giving up so soon?? All the above discussion shows is that interpretation of the text is a matter of POV. You see it one way, I see it another and we will probably never agree. The information here is first and foremost encyclopedic, that is the first tenant of style for Wiki. A section on "racism" is very opinionated, and will serve as nothing more than a troll magnet for more unsavory, unencyclopedic POV. Check the Encycolpedia of Philosophy by Macmillan , and other reptuable sources. Racism was not a part of either Kant's ontology or morality. His comments were restricted to epistemology and examples of illustrating levels of cognition. But not hate or deprivation. Criticizing the members of a race or cultural group is not the same thing as making hate comments and wishing to deprive a race of its basic rights to equal opportunity. Amerindianarts 02:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't honestly say that the man wasn't racist. It's an established fact - he himself wrote about it fairly extensively. And as stated, his particular views were not in line with the wider movement towards equal rights (or, at the very least, a better appreciation of non-anglo culture) in the rest of Europe. To refuse to mention this in what's supposed to be a thorough 'encyclopedic' essay on the man is absurd.

In other words, you're shuffling around the blatantly obvious because you seek to defend his position. If you want to start talking to someone about neutrality, you should start by looking in the mirror.

His comments were restricted to epistemology and examples of illustrating levels of cognition.

He didn't like blacks, and he thought them inferior to whites. He judged on the basis of skin colour. If you need a dictionary, I hear wikipedia does a good line in one.

---

Or, instead of blindly flailing about with uninformed opinions, we could consider the evidence of the source text:

Humanity exists in its greatest perfection in the white race. The yellow Indians have a smaller amount of talent. The Negroes are lower, and the lowest are a part of the American peoples. ... The race of the American [viz. indigenous peoples of North America] cannot be educated. It has no motivating force, for it lacks affect and passion. They are not in love, thus they are also not afraid. They hardly speak, do not caress each other, care about nothing and are lazy. ... cite a single example in which a Negro has shown talents, and... that among the hundreds of thousands of blacks who have been transported elsewhere from their countries, although many of them have been set free, still not one was ever found who presented anything great in art or science or any other praiseworthy quality.

— Kant, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View

Many thanks to Lestrade, who seems to be the one contributor who actually looked at the linked-to article, and is familiar with the source texts pertinent to this issue.

Now... will all this "heat and noise" result in a short paragraph on racism being (durably) added to the Wikipedia article on Kant, or won't it?

---

The repeated claims that everyone was racist in the 18th century are absurd, and, at best, reflect a kind of historical myopia. Gee, can anyone think of any major texts or evidence of diverse opinions about race (and racism) in the 18th century? Boy, how about the entire anti-slavery/abolitionism movement? Gee, how about the entire corpus of 18th c. "enlightenment" literature on the subject that led to the abolition of slavery being one of the objectives of the revolution in France, circa 1789? Gee, the list goes on and on if anyone here stopped to think about it!

I'm being as "civil" as possible about this, as per the stated request above, but anyone who knows the history of the intellectual cross-currents in 18th century Europe will know that anti-racism was (for the first time) being articulated both as part of the anti-slavery/abolitionist movement in this period, and also emerging from the new appreciation for (or, one might say, romanticization of) Indian and East Asian cultures (formerly demonized).

Kant does not have any excuse derived from his era: he lived in a time when the study of Asian and African civilizations (and langauges) was flourishing in German academia --but he had no part in that, and his writing on these continents does not reflect that. He lived in a time when there were many stirring slave narratives in print, and even a few black intellectual in Europe (e.g., Ignatius Sancho, an ex-slave author and composer) --but Kant ignored all of this. Kant ignored a lot of what was happening in the human rights discourse in both French and British philosophy of the time --as well as being (apparently) uninterested in the re-discovery of the outside world (especially Asia) that was blooming (or: booming) both in academic philology (especially in Germany!) and in more popular publications of the "Romantic" period.

So the question really becomes: "Are the claims of guys like Amerindianarts about supposed 'universality' of 18th century racial attitudes sufficient reason to delete any reference to Kant's racism from this article?" The answer is no: they are not. Nor are they based on very broad or deep reading of the issues in the period in question.

I see no reference here claimimg that "everyone was racist in the 18th century". That is an unfounded conclusion on somebody's part, as is Kant was racist. "Kant" and "racism" have failed to appear in reputable philosophical journals, and here at Wiki has been nothing but a troll magnet for those trolls with their own bias and prejudice. As factual content it cannot be substantiated except by opinion. What was the definition of racism in the eighteenth century?? Amerindianarts 00:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a section on Kant's anthropology that contains a paragraph on "Kant's racial theories"? That way, Kant's words can speak for themselves (with select quotations) without an immediate jumping to a conclusion like Kant was racist.-Anthony Krupp 00:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

He didn't have a formal theory on this topic. Do you want Kant's words to speak for themselves? Read the quotations in the above boxes. In the Wikipedia article The Disobedient Child, there is a line quoted that you may want to read.Lestrade 01:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Kant wrote an essay in 1781 entitled "On the various races of mankind." Does that seem relevant to anyone? I don't have time to reread it right now, but it seems to me not inaccurate to say that Kant had racial theories. Maybe even notable ones.-Anthony Krupp 21:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not read it. It may be relevant for a section on his racial theories under a section title of "Kant's Anthopology". I currently do not have the time to put together this section, and it is not a priority for me, but if done objectively and properly cited it may keep the trolls away. My priority is finding citations for the current bio section and his epistemology. I think the most important text for Kant's egalitarianism is The Idea of a Universal History and The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. In the Logic (intro) he uses the term "savage" in referring to someone not knowing the "use" of an object, and therefore having an intuition without concept, and ultimately not what Kant felt was a cognition , or higher level of consciousness. This is Kant's pragmatic approach. It is an epistemological elitism, for certain, and shows his pendantic side. In regard to making a distinction between an intuition of an object and having a concept and therefore a cognition he is using the term "savage" to make a point relevant to the pragmatism of his Anthropology, which is nothing more than a reiteration of the Document of Elements in the Logic and the first Critique. It is important not to confuse what Kant is doing and not confuse a racial theory as being part of, first, his ontology, and secondly his moral theory. He basically uses ethnic examples to illustrate levels of consciousness, and I'm certain that philosophers have viewed this as ethnic, and not racial. Amerindianarts 22:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not been able to find Kant's "On the various races of mankind." Most searches direct to Perpetual Peace and the Idea of a Universal History. I did find an article at (http://www.philosophy.northwestern.edu/people/facDocuments/McCarthy%20Kant%20on%20Race.pdf) which should explain the viewpoint of philosophical anthropology in content and method. The above quote provided by Lestrade: "Of course, Father Labat reports that a Negro carpenter, whom he reproached for haughty treatment toward his wives, answered: "You whites are indeed fools, for first you make great concessions to your wives, and afterward you complain when they drive you mad." And it might be that there was something in this which perhaps deserved to be considered; but in short, this fellow was quite black from head to foot, a clear proof that what he said was stupid." has no meaningful philosophical content in Lestrade's usage. His usage is an obscure elitism which points to the merely superficial. If Kant's comment is racist, then the black man's comment ("You whites are indeed fools, for first you make great concessions to your wives, and afterward you complain when they drive you mad.") is racist as well. The article I have cited explains this. It is lengthy, but a link to it and nothing more would be the perfect solution to references to Kant's racial theories in any proposed subsection of kant's anthropology. Amerindianarts 18:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that quote a self-reference? Amerindianarts 01:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC) If Kant did not have a formal theory on the subject I fail to see any racial issue. Did anybody during that period have a formal theory or defintiion of racism? If so, was the definition then the same as what is currently used? There is a difference between ethnocentric commentary, and actually racism. To ignore these distinctions is to not be listening. Amerindianarts 01:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, May I suggest a section "Kant and anthropology" with the quotations above and some others from The Idea of a Universal History,explaining that people generally don't agree on their interpretation and letting the reader make his own thinking. Chrisdel 06:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What quote do you mean? There have been several here. If you have read this section then you already know that is the topic. The question is "how to do it within the limits of reason" (and properly cited where there is inference) and not be racial in depicting what is proposed as racial, or following the path of those that might suggest in terms of an obscure, superficial elitism. The comments of the Logic are important for a well rounded understanding of Kant's mind set. The comments of the unregistered User:202.62.101.65 (contribs) who refuses to sign his entries should be completely discounted as those of a sock-puppet. Amerindianarts 09:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Guideline proposals for philosophy and philosophers articles are being formulated here:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy/Proposal_for_criticisms) and this page seems particularly important to the issue of this talk section. While open to interpretation, it proposes that any criticisms should not be a dialogue between various camps. The main project is the bio project and the philosophy project's main page is here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy). Amerindianarts 15:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

---

"The field of philosophy may be reduced to the following questions:

1. What can I know?

2. What ought I do?

3. What may I hope for?

4. What is man?

The first question is answered by metaphysics, the second by morals, the third by religion, and the fourth by anthropology. In reality, however, all these might be reckoned under anthropology, since the first three questions refer to the last." Despite this clear statement which situates anthropology as central to any complete philosophy, a great majority of Kantian scholarship seems to pay little or no attention to his more empirical works. [...]

[This] is not supported by the facts, for Kant’s interest in anthropology was anything but secondary. In fact, (and most scholars are surprised to learn this) if all his lecture courses given over his university teaching career of forty years were to be categorized by subject matter, lectures on "moral philosophy" would come in nearly last (28 times) ; "metaphysics" would follow shortly thereafter (offered 49 times); and "anthropology" would by far lead the entire pack in terms of number of times presented by Kant (72 times). Clearly, then, there is little or no support for any argument that Kant viewed his anthropology as secondary, or of little importance to his overall goal.

[[2]]

Kant presents an explicit racialist (and racist) theory of human anthropology (that directly relates to his ethics and even cognitive theories) on a quadrapartite model not only in On the various races of mankind and the anthropological works, but makes damning appearances (in passing) also in his major opuses. Kant's Anthropology is very much his "theory of man" in the classical sense, and it is neither marginal nor irrelevant to understanding his more popular cognitive, religious, and political tropes. I simply think that "Amerindianarts" has neither read the article that I have repeatedly provided a link to, nor has he consulted the salient primary sources. However, he seems to nevertheless have the power to strike any mention of this issue from the record!

Yes, I read the essay by a graduate student that you provided a link for and it really hasn't changed my mind that your original entry to the Kant article had malintentions and violated Wiki guidelines for posting criticisms of an individual, especially in regard to accusations of racism. Your choice of quotes and the presentation was very one-sided and was nothing but POV. In a few lays words, "it sucked". The conclusions drawn by (what was his name?) Hachee were presented in a objective manner that I'm not surprised would make you envious, but he also implies that no real conclusions can be drawn. Hachee seems to have enough diplomacy and academic sense not to explicitly state that "Kant was a racist" (take the hint).

Have you read the article I provided a link for by John C. Shaffer Distinguished Professor of the Humanities (Ph.D. Notre Dame) Thomas A. McCarthy, professor at Northwestern Univ.?? If you haven't, maybe you should. If you have and can still cling to your non-objective, non-academic bias, shame on you. As for not searching the primary sources, I have done that repeatly beginning a long time ago as a graduate student in philosophy. I too was bothered by some of Kant's remarks but found supporting information on Kant and racism non-existent in major works (most encyclopedias of philosophy never mention the terms "Kant" and "racism" together even in a remote sense). I have read Kant extensively and while his text may seem conflicting, I do not wish to draw conclusions. The fact that, as Hachee pointed out, Kant used Hume's argument shows that what may seem contemporaneously as a racist outlook was in fact the license of THEIR time, and was rampant until the end of the eighteenth century. Modern concepts only had their beginnings with Bentham and Mill. It simply isn't fair, objectively, academically, anthropologically, philosophically, or any other sense, to present Kant, Hume, or any others of that time or prior time as racists. If it is the case, then we should include accusations of racism in the Wiki articles on Aristotle, Plato, even St. Thomas, etc. I have found that there is good reason why philosphers have left it alone. It draws conclusions upon objective evidence that just isn't present.

I think you have presented your best arguments and have failed to impress or sway me. Maybe you should consider going over my head, because your strict, one-sided standpoint is never going to gain favor with me on this page. Amerindianarts 08:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A further comment on Hachee's essay at www.msu.edu/~hacheema/kant2.htm. This essay is actually quite good, however, his concluding remark, "Rather, it appears to be the result of a tradition conveniently blind to its own racism" still does not follow, and at the very least is forcing an issue in order to make the grade (POV). He first equivocates "What is a man?" as "What is a person?" and the notion of "what is full-personhood?" while intermitantly using and not using the notion of "rational being". This is a novel approach, using the question particular to contemporary medical ethics of "What is a person?". The question however, as stated, does not reveal the complete concept as it is applied in ethics generally in our day, especially in regard to medical ethics and its further application to animal ethics. The question is "What has interests?" Concretely, a fetus may not be considered by some as yet a person, but its interests in obtaining nourishment, the continuing warmth of its mother's womb, and life, may make it a candidate for personhood. Animals are not persons, but they, like a fetus, have interests. The concept of "interests" further implies applications to species, and not simply "man", "rational being", or "person". Hachee implies this as well, but proceeds on the basis of Kant extending the concept to species, which is arguable, but even if true is not a concluding factor. It is a sleight of hand in assimilating the diffences of concepts of race then and now with the specieist argument, and trying to establish a covalence of the terms temporally. Racism then as a concept is not the same as "racism" now. Nor is "person" (rational being), or "interests". In the eighteenth century an unconscious person was a person until dead. Now, a person on life support who is brain dead may no longer have interests, and while still described as "living", is a proposed candidate for non-personhood and termination of life support. The concept of "interests" now is not covalent with eighteenth century usage.

In the eighteenth century Kant used the term "savage" to describe the different levels of consciousness and the defintion of cognition. It was acceptable for the time. In the late nineteenth century Frank Hamilton Cushing, the originator of participant observation and the use of the term "cultures" in the plural in distinction from the German notion of Kultur, used the term "savage" to describe the Zuni people he lived with for four years. His audience were the readers of the Victorian era, and his colleagues in anthropolgy and the American Bureau of Ethnology. The term "savages" was a scientific, descriptive term of anthropology and was perfectly acceptable for the time. Today, the term is used in mostly a derogatory sense. Anthropologists today would not dare use the term "savage" to describe the Zuni, or any other members of what may be a primitive culture. Even the term "primitive" in modernity has questionable connotation. If a philosophical anthropologist today were to criticize Cushing for his use of the term "savage", it would be considered wrong-headed and wrong-hearted, with possible malintent. Hachee's generalization to species without reference to interests does not circumvent temporal distancing and establish the covalence of terms needed to prove his concluding remark.Amerindianarts 11:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that Kant was rascist- but that doesn't mean that his racism is important. I would think that most dead white guys (and most dead yellow, red, and black ones) could have a paragraph written about them that mentions some racists things they wrote or said. Kant didn't contribute anything to the history of racism, becasue his rascist works were not widely read. More important historically is Kant's work in physics and astronomy. Kant came up with theories about galaxies, solar system formation, planteary motion and spacetime that were groundbreaking in his time, and some of them still stand today.Paladinwannabe2 19:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It is not important and much to controversial. Given historical perpsectives of time a place, a paragraph on dead people who cannot defend themselves regarding accusations of racism is unfair, unacademic, and unencyclopedic (Wiki is an Encyclopedia). Amerindianarts 19:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The comments about the importance of Kant's (possible) racism seem exactly wrong to me. When people first learn of Kant, he is often presented as rebuking the prior ways of thinking and presenting an absolutist morality which is derived from "pure" reason. If he was in fact racist (or if, at least, a legitimate question exists regarding his racism), this certainly colors and informs the presentation of Kant as the constructor of a novel and radical morality.

Moreover, the controversy over Kant's racism has to be at least important and encyclopedic as the discussion of a Kantian revival in cognitive science and pyschology and as the extended references and external links sections.

Also, suggesting that controversial issues should be avoided by encyclopedias is wrong, because you cannot avoid them. By intentionally ignoring the issue, we are deciding to resolve it in a certain way. The encyclopedic thing to do would be to determine whether there is a legitimate debate regarding Kant's racism and then to report that (indeed, to report that in a way distinct from adjudicating it). And it is no more "fair" to grant the deceased a free pass regarding their flaws merely for being deceased than it is "fair" to condemn them. Instead, whether alive or dead, an encyclopedia should strive to present an limited overview of the way things are in truth. If, in truth, Kant's racism is a legitimate question at least as relevant as the least relevant thing in the article, either it should be added or the other thing should be removed. Anything else suggests boosterism and devalues the project.Cka3n 19:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And there is the problem of presenting the issue and regard for it as criticism according to Wiki guidelines. The issue is really not as simple as a criticism of his racial views. It must be placed in historical perspective which would require lengthy explanations. There are articles on line to be linked to that handle the issue better than any one here at wiki can. The issue has a long history of debate on this page, and to place a section on Kant and reference to "racism" in the article is nothing but a troll magnet for those who have their own non-objective bias and prejudices. I seriously doubt that it can be presented and maintained here in a neutral manner, and at the least would litter this page with more garbage and innuendo. Amerindianarts 19:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a link in the "See also" section to McCarthy's article "Kant On Race and Development". This article is the best I have found in presenting a neutral and objective view to the problem. If it was not for the speculative and controversial nature of its unsupported conclusion I would have also added Hachee's essay. McCarthy's link can be referred to when a section on Kant's anthropology (absent accusations of racism) is completed. Amerindianarts 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I find it quite risible that the various parties engaged in this discussion have made fiery repudiations of the claim that the western tradition is selectively blind to its own racism, given that the substance of the discussion is precisely this: a debate as to precisely how to justify turning a blind eye to Kant's racism.

It is also worthwhile to note that the discussion progressed from the denial that Kant was racist to the posit that his racism is not worth mentioning, or would be too complicated to explain, or entails questions of editorial policy too difficult to understand; all of the latter positions would seem to tacitly admit that Kant was racist. If it is such a difficult issue for any of you to write about or admit, this does not indicate that "it doesn't matter", but that you're the wrong authors for the job.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.62.100.115 (talk • contribs) .

You begin every phase of your argument with the presupposition that Kant was a racist. POV. I think you also refer in an earlier conversation that those that repudiate are stating that all pre-eighteenth century individuals were racist, yet the very article you claim for support states that very thing in its conclusion (a conclusion that is not supported by the premises, see my critique above of Hachee's argument). You also refuse to refer to the viable content as to time and place in history, looking at the issue only from the contemporary view of a non-philosopher. Your arguments are circular, and therefore easy to consider valid, but they have no substance or soundness because of your refusal to accept historicity. You can take Kant's text at face value, but you will never understand it in doing so. That is your problem and not a problem to be passed on to readers. A link to a fair and objective paper on Kant's Racism and Development as the academic world sees it has been added in the external links. Let those that are curious investigate and judge for themselves, and not be tainted with opinions of those with their own bias issues, such as yourself, or any other who will inevidibly present the issue reflecting their own feeling . The bias is evident in your circular argumentation. You assume face value, and assume what you think you prove. Amerindianarts 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I also signed your comment for you. I have no problem signing my name. Of course, I also have no problem in owning up to what I say. I don't say things that I would have a problem signing my name to, even if it is anonymous by IP address. Why don't you register and show yourself.

If you feel so strongly about a blind eye to racism in the eighteenth century, why don't you do a Wiki article on the subject. User User: Durova has made a comment below suggesting the article Cultural depictions of Immanuel Kant. Other such articles on personalities have already been created. What I don't understand is this: after checking your contributions, and the contributions of IPs above of anonymous users which I believe belong to you, I find that their only contribution is to this talk page. So, if you feel that the eighteenth century and/or before had a blind eye to racism, why have you singled out Kant? Are we detecting some bias or prejudice towards a single individual? Issues for certain. How about "Cultural Depictions of Racism in History"? Include major figures in a comprehensive article and don't single out the bio of an individual and slatter it with your bile. Amerindianarts 06:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think that the question, whether Kant was a racist, has not come to a conclusion because his account is obviously self-contradictory. I want to show this simply using two quotes:

"Humanity exists in its greatest perfection in the white race. The yellow Indians have a smaller amount of talent. The Negroes are lower, and the lowest are a part of the American peoples" I have taken this quote from the discussion above. I want to point out that this quotate is not contained in the published version of the Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of view; see http://www.ikp.uni-bonn.de/kant/aa07/320.html. If Kant truly said this, then please provide the correct quotation.

"But to this perfection compare the inhospitable actions of the civilized and especially of the commercial states of our part of the world. The injustice which they show to lands and peoples they visit (which is equivalent to conquering them) is carried by them to terrifying lengths. America, the lands inhabited by the Negro, the Spice Islands, the Cape, etc., were at the time of their discovery considered by these civilized intruders as lands without owners, for they counted the inhabitants as nothing. In East India (Hindustan), under the pretense of establishing economic undertakings, they brought in foreign soldiers and used them to oppress the natives, excited widespread wars among the various states, spread famine, rebellion, perfidy, and the whole litany of evils which afflict mankind." Immanuel Kant Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch 1795, THIRD DEFINITIVE ARTICLE FOR A PERPETUAL PEACE "The Law of World Citizenship Shall Be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality"

Furthermore, we should be clear to make the following distinction: It is one idea to believe that human races exist and human races have different faculties. This belief does not necessarily entail the belief that racial discrimination, apartheid and genocide is justified.

While in the first - supposedly accurate - quotation, non-whites, in particular native Americans and negroes, are considered as lesser human beings than whites, the latter quotation clearly condemns the "civilized intruders" (whites) for the litany of evils afflicted on the native Americans and negroes. Therefore, the notion that Kant was a racist is controversial.

I've recently come across an article by Pauline Kleingeld - a notable dutch philosopher - called: "Kant's second thoughts on race". She explains these contradiction by stating that Kant eventually changed his mind with regard to race. "During the 1780s, as he wrote the Groundwork and the Critique of Practical Reason, and probably until at least 1792, his [Kants] disturbing views on race contradicted his own moral universalism. He finally resolved this contradiction during the mid-1790s, at the latest during the writing of the manuscript for Toward Perpetual Peace. This finds expression not only in his explicit strengthening, in his moral and legal theories, of the status of non-Europeans, bus also in his description of the mental properties which he attributes to non-whites, and especially in the harsh criticism of the injustice perpetrated by the European colonial powers."; The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 57, no. 229, page 592. 77.4.116.103 (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Final remark: If we do add a section about Kant's anthropology, we should take care not to misrepresent the meaning of human races to his anthropology. A single page out of 330 pages is directed to the topic of human races in his final work on anthropology; anthropology from a pragmatic point of view. Therefore, human races were not of prime concern to Kant. In fact, the chapter called "character of the race" merely refers to a book by H. R. Girtanner. Finaly Kant feels compelled to add a paragraph about the "natural tendency to infinitely amplify the physical and mental varieties within a race and even within the same family". The above quote with regard to the white race having the greatest perfection appears to be taken from one of his lectures on anthropology. These are secondary sources, since the lectures were not published by Kant himself. Merely the alleged notes taken by his students survive. Kilian Klaiber 77.4.120.155 (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that for a philosopher or thinker, whether Kant or anyone else, to be legitimately described as racist in a way that is relevant to an encyclopedia article about him or her and that is likely to attain consensus among both scholars and encyclopedia writers/editors, one or more of the following criteria have to be met: 1) the thinker's basic definition of human beings, a human being, or humanity has racial distinctions built into it, i.e. people's essential nature is racially defined; 2) the thinker advocates policies, or social, political, or cultural practices or structures, that have oppressive racial distinctions or hierarchy built into them; 3) the thinker is known to have, in his everyday social life, treated people of different races differently and in a way that is oppressive, demeaning, violent, or humiliating to one or more races. Unless there is strong evidence that one or more of these conditions hold, it doesn't make sense to attribute racism to a thinker as a basic and noteworthy characteristic of his/her thought. An attribution of racism requiring interpretation, i.e. "so-and-so is really racist because of certain implications of her/his thought" or based on statements by that thinker that don't clearly establish one of these three conditions, will never make a convincing case of that thinker's racism. I haven't seen, in general literature about Kant or in discussion on this talk page, anything that would indicate that Kant meets any one of these three criteria, and without that it would seem like a willful, one-sided, dogmatic, ideological, or original-research act if he were described in that way. Jjshapiro (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures

This is the title of Kant's essay. The term "proved" cannot be and has not been a part of the title as it has been translated by Kant translators. Attempts to change the reference to Kant's essay to a title of an article someone is doing is unacceptable. If the new article on this essay is to be linked to from the reference to this essay title in Kant's article, then it should be changed according, but not by trying to change the name of the essay's title. Amerindianarts 02:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The title of Kant's essay is Die Falsche Spitzfindigkeit der vier syllogistischen Figuren erwiesen. This is translated as The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures Proved. There is no On (Über) in the title. The word erwiesen means proved. Do you disagree with this? If so, on what source are you basing your assertion?Lestrade 12:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

You have made a good point and I think would be Ok if the Kant article here was written in its mother tongue, but it is not. Kant scholar Thomas Abbott translated it adding the "On". That is the English title in publication. Most mainstream English titles use just "The". This article is in English, and refers to those publications and those titles. If you would rather use the title as The Four... that is fine. I would suggest this: Leave the article titles in this article as they are, their English translation, and then for Wiki search purposes redirect the currently non-existent articles The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures and On The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures to the English version as The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures Proved. Amerindianarts 14:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I think the correct translation is not "proved", but is more in terms of "To Prove the Mistaken Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures".Amerindianarts 15:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a subtlety for connoiseurs only. English-language writers have a notoriously difficult time with the order of the letters "ei" and "ie." The German word erweisen means to prove. The German word erwiesen means proved or proven.Lestrade 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Great. But that still doesn't circumvent the translation to English titles. Your distinction for connoiseurs may have been the reason behind Abbott's addition of "On". Who knows?? It was Kant's intention in his works of the so-called pre-critical time period to establish precedent for what must be accomplished in order to prove, not to prove. I think the redirect described already is still the best solution. You might also change the German translation in the bibliography and redirect it to the article in English. Regardless of the subtleties and distinctions I think that deviating from the common English translations may confuse some readers and is not a good idea. Give them what they are probably familiar with and let them discover the truth. Amerindianarts 17:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Popular misconceptions revisited

Multiple suggestions have been made regarding the integration of the first and third paragraphs of this now defunct section with the body of the text. Since that would have left a single paragraph in this section I opted to integrate it all and delete the section entirely. Any suggestions for improvement or objections to this move are welcome. Amerindianarts 06:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reads much better now. Good call!-Anthony Krupp 21:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Kant's philosophy

"Kant's main overall concern was the prevention of civil unrest. Traditionally, peace was maintained because people believed that they would be punished in an afterlife if they committed crimes. It had been widely acknowledged that an almighty God had arranged this system. However, when people began to lose their faith in such metaphysical entities, Kant wanted to salvage that faith. He claimed that, because of the way that we think, no one could really know if there is a God and an afterlife. But, then again, no one could really know that there was not a God and an afterlife. For the sake of society and morality, Kant asserted, people are reasonably justified in believing in them, even though they could never know for sure whether they are real or not. "All the preparations of reason, therefore, in what may be called pure philosophy, are in reality directed to those three problems only (God, Soul, Freedom). These themselves, however, have a still further object, namely, to know what ought to be done, if the will is free, if there is a God, and if there is a future world. As this concerns our actions with reference to the highest aims of life, we see that the ultimate intention of nature in her wise provision was really, in the constitution of our reason, directed to moral interests only. " Critique of Pure Reason, A801."

This reference does not substantiate claims made in the paragraph. Either the paragraph needs a rewrite, or ommission. Claims are made:

1. "Kant's main overall concern was the prevention of civil unrest." This is a value judgment. It can be said that this is subsumptive to the preventative method which was Kant's concern for education and cultivation of the masses.
2. "Traditionally, peace was maintained because people believed that they would be punished in an afterlife if they committed crimes." Another value judgement not substantiate by the source given. What does crimes mean? Against man? nature? Is this a legal reference, or moral? Afterlife was also a religious concept, and religion did anything but preserve the peace.
3. "However, when people began to lose their faith in such metaphysical entities, Kant wanted to salvage that faith." That people in general began to lose faith is an extremely controversial statement. POV.

Cultural depictions of Immanuel Kant

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Intuition

I think we might need a section or article on what Kant means by intuition. http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm#intuition --JimWae 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It should probably be discussed in a more general section on his epistemology. Amerindianarts 00:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Studying Kant in High School

This is possible if the simple purpose of Kant's writing is presented to the students. Kant's basic intention was to say that we can't really know if there is or isn't a God or a life after death. However, it is best for everyone if we believe that God and immortal souls truly exist.Lestrade 01:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

More on Aesthetics

Kant is specific that judgments of beauty do not rest on concepts and a concept is required for cognition. Thus, beauty is related to feeling and not thinking when Kant defines thinking as cognitio discursiva in the Logic and the Critique of Pure Reason. The term "determinate" states too much and tends to vagueness in the section. While accurate to a degree, it technically assumes too much and neglects, or overlooks, aspects of cognition that need further explanation, presumably as a section on epistemology.

Also, the understanding does play a part subjectively in feeling of taste, but to state that it "appears as understanding" is technically incorrect and overlooks paragraphs 20-22 where the universality of the feelings of beauty are given through the understanding. It would be more appropriate to state it as it "appears as an objective judgment". It appears that we are using reason because it appears as if the judgment is determinate and based upon concept, a quality that belongs to moral judgments, and reason as it is involved in the the feeling for the sublime, but not beauty.

Anyone wishing to contest the changes of these inaccuracies is welcome to. Amerindianarts 16:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kant's views on women

The subsection on this under Anthropology was literally just this:

Women

Many authors have criticized Kant's negative views on women.

---

I've removed it from the article because it is a single sentence in the passive voice. I preserve it here, however, in hopes someone might use some of these sources to compose something with content and restore it to the article. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

References

integration of material from sub-article on "Kantian ethics"

As described here <Talk:Kantian_ethics#reintegration_of_Outline_into_main_Kant_page>, I propose to merge the treatment of Kant's moral philosophy from that article into this one. Please discuss there to keep everything in one place. I'm tagging top editors of this page who have contributed in the past couple years. Please add anyone I have overlooked. Omnipaedista, Freeknowledgecreator, TonyClarke, JimWae, Drevolt.

Thanks, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Per discussion on that Talk page, I am copying over some material from the child page on Kantian Ethics, but I am not deleting it from that page. If there are issues with this duplication, please raise them here.

Most of what I am copying is my own work, and, if it is an either-or situation, I prefer it to be on the main Kant page.

I expect, though, that even just in the course of my own near-future edits, the text will change considerably in both articles (even if the sources remain largely the same).

(See the discussion on the other Talk page for details.)

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

scholarly resources online

This post is just to call to the attention of editors the many topic-specific peer-reviewed articles on Kant at the IEP and the SEP. Even more than I expected! You can now find all of them that are directly about Kant listed at Immanuel Kant#External links. These are a great scholarly sources for anyone interested in improving this article or branching it out into a child article.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Influence and legacy

It seems to me this section may need a rewrite. The lead is mostly a list that appears to have been just invented by an editor. The Historical Influence section is uneven in its coverage and not well-organized. The Influence on Modern Thinkers is completely arbitrary.

What do others think? Is this material worth saving, or should it be replaced?

My proposal would be to have a brief discussion of Kant's reception by his immediate successors, and then to describe his influence as dividing into the camps of the German Idealists and the neo-Kantians, prefiguring the Continental-Analytic division in the practice of philosophy throughout the twentieth century. The idea would be to keep it short and rely on Wikilinks.

Kant has probably exerted more influence on subsequent philosophy than anyone since Plato and Aristotle. We can convey this without cataloguing names. Any singling out of individuals beyond the early nineteenth century is going to be arbitrary (and only encourage other editors to add mention of their favorite philosophers).

Or are there other suggestions? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

(re)organization/overhaul

I recently picked up Paul Guyer’s 2014 Kant, and intended to update this page as appropriate over the course of my reading.

Unfortunately, aside from being largely unsourced, the article is much too disordered to admit of that kind of incremental improvement. Major parts of Kant's philosophy are missing completely, while other parts are treated only in a highly scattered way, sometimes repetitively, usually without any kind of references.

To begin to remedy this situation, I am going to edit what is there now to remove redundancies, obvious errors, and to get everything into an appropriate section.

Then I will flesh out the TOC, probably relying mostly on the SEP and IEP entries. Just having a coherent and reasonably comprehensive outline will make it much easier for other editors to productively contribute. I will not insert anything that is "merely" a placeholder, as the article needs to readable at all times; I may, however, insert some short sections that the article needs, but which will require fleshing out.

In terms of content, what this page most needs is to have good coverage of Kant's project in the three Critiques and a more robust treatment of his moral thought. It should be obvious, which it is not from the article in its present state, that Kant is a systematic thinker.

Please bear with me during the process of reordering and integrating redundant copy in the existing article (and, absent strong arguments of objection, at least one child article). I am just doing my best to preserve the work of previous editors before making my own additions.

In particular, the lead to the Philosophy section is currently its own free-floating thing. After integrating its contents into the appropriate sections below, I will be following the good Wikipedia policy of working backwards from the body of the section or article up to the lead, which should just briefly announce what is elaborated below.

Suggestions most welcome; collaboration, of course, encouraged —

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Bravo! (i.e. you're a brave fellow!) Errantios (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so my strategy of working backwards did not work on the material covering the first Critique. Sections supposedly devoted to parts of the Transcendental Doctrine of the Elements were mostly occupied with defining terms from the introductory sections of the book. I have now done this first part, which should make possible a more focused and accurate account of what Kant is doing in the body of the text in the two sections that follow.

I should also note that, if the work of Paul Guyer looms large, that is just because it is his book I happen to be reading. It's not my intent to impose any interpretative bias on the article. I just don't know that much of the recent scholarship on this part of Kant's philosophy. So I am just trusting that others will step in and make any necessary changes to ensure neutrality. If appropriate, please tag me here to bring any issues to my attention. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

My overview of the first Critique, or at least my first pass, is complete. It currently reads too much like a summary of the TOC for my taste, but I think it is an improvement over the previous coverage. My hope is that once the rest of the article is more complete it will be possible to better frame and synthesize material into a more accessibly encyclopedic format. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

A section "Criticism" Synotia (moan) 14:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Synotia,

Sorry for such a late response. I seem to have missed this.

My concern with a dedicated Criticism section is that it would quickly become extremely messy. Kant made contributions to many areas of philosophy, and he is such a major figure that many philosophers, important figures in their own right, have issued critical remarks that are much more about their own distinctive projects than anything in Kant's philosophy. Furthermore, the scholarship is so extensive that it would be extremely difficult even for a specialist to catalog the "major" criticism in an organized way. On Wikipedia, any such list is sure to be unrepresentative (and also probably generate no end of arguments among editors).

A practice that I think might better serve the article and its readers would be to just briefly note criticism of the various parts of his philosophy in the sections devoted to those parts. In some cases, as with the "Interpretive disagreements" section under "Transcendental idealism," this might merit its own subsection.

In general, I don't think we ought to do much more than just acknowledge any major scholarly disagreements documented with a source that interested readers can pursue.

After all, this is an encyclopedia entry, not a literature review!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this insightful reply, I now also think that would be better. Synotia (moan) 12:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

TOC

This post outlines one possible TOC for a complete entry on Kant. Others are possible, but I offer this with annotations for anyone interested in contributing who does not know where to start or what is missing. It is also, obviously, a chance for others to offer feedback and suggestions for improvement. (Be aware that I am in many cases assessing my own work when I claim that some section is, for instance, adequately complete.)

The literature, obviously, is enormous. The links I provide are just freely available starting points. (If you want to consult with the Cambridge materials but can't access them, just tag or email me via my Wikipedia user page and I will send whatever you request.)

BIOGRAPHY

I think this section is fine. People will continue to make incremental improvements. And, in any case, Kant had a famously boring life and I doubt anyone is coming here for this.

PHILOSOPHY

INFLUENCES/EARLY DEVELOPMENT

Possibly this is already covered in the Biography section, in which event, great. Good sources for the addition of an independent section would be <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-development/> or <https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-kant/kants-intellectual-development/53F0D3A194BEBAED5AFDA4616F6FC33B>.

KANT'S CRITICAL PROJECT

This section should describe Kant's project across the three Critiques and define his central philosophical terms. Right now it needs an addition treating the distinction he introduces in the CPJ between determining and reflecting judgment. This can be added from Guyer's Introduction to the Cambridge edition or any number of other sources. The section might also benefit from reference to WE? on the Enlightenment ethos. Last, it should give a high level outline clarifying the overall systematic structure of the three critiques that contextualizes the more detailed treatment occupying the rest of the article. I will try to put this together myself—unless someone else beats me to the punch!

THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM

This section treats the "Transcendental Aesthetic." I think it's fine, but that's probably because I don't think much of Kant's argument here. Someone more sympathetic might want to expand it with reference to additional sources. Edit: It needs to say something about the thing in itself prior to its mention in the subsection on "Interpretive disagreements." This was a huge issue in the reception of the Critical Philosophy (and, in some ways, it remains so today). Even if the Reception section is rewritten along the lines I suggest, we can't wait until then to bring this up, and I think this is the most obvious place to add a paragraph. (Other suggestions, as always, most welcome.)

KANT'S THEORY OF JUDGMENT

This section probably needs a better title. It treats the "Transcendental Logic," widely considered the most important part of the CPuR. I think it is relatively complete, but it would definitely benefit from expert attention—and probably also just a copy edit by someone who has better internalized the intricacies of Kant's dense arguments.

CRITIQUE OF METAPHYSICS

As above. I think it's relatively complete, but I'm sure there's still plenty of room for improvement.

MORAL THOUGHT

The subsection on "The idea of freedom" needs sourcing. This section also needs at least a short paragraph explaining why Kant felt he needed to write the CPracR when he had already written the Groundwork. It is possible that the section would also benefit from additional coverage of the latter. Keep in mind though that there is a decent child page entirely devoted to Kantian ethics and an extensive outline of The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals elsewhere on Wikipedia. The leading experts here are probably Allen W. Wood, Mary J. Gregor, and J. B. Schneewind — anything by any of these folks is a great source. Also, the "To-Do" list at the top of the page points out that Kant's actual argument for freedom is not clearly articulated. I didn't really even notice because the premises, I think, are all there and I just connected them myself. But this needs to be done explicitly in the article.

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

This section needs more coverage of The Doctrine of Right. A good source is https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/.

RELIGIOUS WRITINGS

This section needs treatment of Kant's doctrine of radical evil. A good source is https://iep.utm.edu/rad-evil/. (The first chapter of Richard J. Bernstein's Radical Evil is also a great source, but it is not to my knowledge freely available online.)

AESTHETIC THEORY

This section is in serious need of sourcing. There are entries both here <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics> and here <https://iep.utm.edu/kantaest/>, as well as in basically every introductory volume and general interest anthology on Kant.

NATURAL SCIENCE

This section needs to be created. It should treat Kant's efforts to provide a metaphysical foundation for physics in MFNS and OP. It should also treat Kant's account of teleology in CPJ and elsewhere. A good source is https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/. There are also entries in <https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-kant/159271031F75CA907EF0C297B7FEBD55> and at <https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-kant-and-modern-philosophy/philosophy-of-natural-science/0B114832FAB6AEEA94B6B4314045856F>.

PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS

I consider this to be marginal to both Kant studies and the history and philosophy of mathematics. Some people take it seriously though, and it does have its own SEP entry: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mathematics/. Anyone who might take this up should determine where it belongs in the article.

ANTHROPOLOGY

This section currently gives a great deal of attention to Kant's racism and its implications without first explaining why he was engaging with physical geography and "pragmatic" anthropology in the first place. Today these are separate disciplines, but Kant lectured on them annually for over two decades. This needs to be explained. Here is one possible source: https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/books/kant-anthropology-from-a-pragmatic-point-of-view/introduction/8A1B3E3CE65D977C129A21C3E087BF79.

RECEPTION

As I've said previously, I think this section should be narrowed to Kant's immediate reception. One good source is <https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-kant/first-twenty-years-of-critique/A7859232E2CA9D68C4971D9EC2908EDC>. Otherwise, I think we can rely on the work of Frederick Beiser and just Wikilink out to German idealism and neo-Kantianism (however much those pages themselves leave to be desired). Attempting anything more is bound to be an arbitrary exercise in futility.

Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

punctuation query

Hi @Anomalocaris and @Errantios,

Thanks for your contributions correcting Wiki-syntax in the article!

One question, however: why have so many periods and commas been moved outside of quote marks? This is contrary to every style manual I've ever seen, and it is at odds with the practice standard across virtually all print media.

When it comes to something like American versus British spelling, I don't care so long as the article is consistent. Misplaced punctuation, however, distracts me from what I am reading.

If there is a good reason supporting this unusual practice, would you share?

The practice is currently inconsistent across the article, which is worse than committing to either one or the other. This is easy enough to fix with ctl-f, but I don't want to start an editing conflict over something inconsequential to the content of the article.

Oh, and sorry if this query belongs elsewhere. It's just that you both edited one after the other, and so it seemed easiest to keep it on the Kant Talk page.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Patrick J. Welsh: MOS:LQUOTE —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Patrick J. Welsh and @Anomalocaris

As MOS:LQUOTE says:

If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark.

Miller wanted, he said, "to create something timeless".

Miller said: "I wanted to create something timeless."

Errantios (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to you both! I did look at the MOS, but apparently skimmed through much too quickly.

I'm pretty sure this convention is out-of-sync with academic publishing in the humanities even in the UK, but I will at least refrain from "correcting" folks who move punctuation outside of quote marks.

(Something tells me that computer science majors outnumbered the English majors in whatever committee decided this policy. But fine. This is in no way a hill I care to die on.)

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I have now gone through the whole article, attending to punctuation matters of this and other kinds, as well as making some minor clarifications of presentation. I am not qualified to proceed beyond that level—except as to legal theory, on which I hope to add something. Errantios (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Racism revisions

I would like to suggest some edits to the treatment of Racism in this article. My basic concern is that the current critique only makes sense given a modern Western perspective on racism. It would not be a valid critique in Kant's time, nor would it make sense from other contemporary perspectives, e.g. Indian or Chinese. To avoid this problem I would avoid absolute statements e.g. "His cosmopolitan reputation, however, is stained by his promulgation of scientific racism..." and might prefer "Critics have recognized certain of Kant's works as deficient by modern Western standards of social equity, although in their 16th century context they were mainstream." Before I dive in though I am hoping for feedback from people who are more aware of the history of this page and the current material on racism. @PatrickJWelsh JBradleyChen (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed alternative is not really an alternative, since it makes no reference to racism. I would have taken it to refer to his views on, maybe, women or democracy. It is, true, however, that scientific racism was ordinary in his time (not BTW the 16th century). How about an amendment to: "In today's eyes, however, his reputation is stained by his promulgation of ..."? Errantios (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt feedback. I meant 18th century of course; thanks for the correction. Regarding the term 'racism', part of my concern is that some of the current language suggests subjectivity ill-suited for this context. In particular, "racism" is charged language, pre-judging the subject in a modern Western context. Similarly, "stained" seems biased. I was attempting a factual statement to avoid these potential biases. Consider a hypothetical edit:

Critics recognize certain of Kant's works as deficient by modern Western standards of social equity,

Would you agree that this is an objective, factual statement? Do you think that replacing "social equity" with "racism" or "racial equity" improves the statement? Perhaps one might also need to add something about sexism, in that case. JBradleyChen (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Consider Wikipedia:Core content policies:

1. Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) – All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias

My concern is that the current introductory text regarding reputation is not neutral and does not represent significant views fairly. JBradleyChen (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@JBradleyChen; cc: @Errantios.

Thanks for tagging me on this.

I do not see, though, what's wrong with the term "racism." Kant explicitly talks about race all the time in the Anthropology and related texts, and what he says about non-Europeans is often quite disparaging. A clause could be added to note his historical context, in which such views were commonplace, but the term is perfectly accurate.

If it sounds judgmental, that is because the multiple scholarly sources cited throughout this section are explicitly critical of Kant's views. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

User:PatrickJWelshUser:JBradleyChen

Quite right, Patrick. "Racism" is well established in social science as a descriptive term. Errantios (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledge the legitimacy of the term 'racism' to refer to racism. I am concerned with the use of "Racism" as a section title, as it trivializes what appears to be an intellectual struggle throughout Kant's career, denies his final position, and ignores the importance of contributions to social equity such as the Categorical Imperative.

I am also concerned with terms like "cosmopolitain reputation" and "stained" in the introduction. These seem like ornamental language inconsistent with WP:NPOV.

To make the discussion more neutral, I would suggest the following:

• Less ornamental language in the introductory material
• Update section title to something less provocative
• An introductory passage in the section on racial/social equity to contextualize Kant's views and explain their development over his career
• Review by qualified Kant scholars to verify this treatment

I am not a qualified Kant scholar but do know a few people who might be able to help.

JBradleyChen (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Upon further review I would like next to give some attention to the paragraph that begins: "Kant was one of the most".

Here are some concerns:

• The citation to Mills 2017 appears to be incorrect. It cites pages 169-193, but those pages do not concern Kant. I believe it should reference the chapter on Kant which in my copy is pages 91-112
• The citation to Eze 1997b suggests Eze is the author, but the author is Kant, his article "On the Different Races of Man", p38-49. Eze doesn't identify the translator, and says it is the 1775 version, but it appears to use the 3rd chapter from the Kant's 1777 version of the essay, which is confusing. Eze's translation is from E.W. Count 1950 "This is Race" although I don't have access to that volume to identify the translator or related considerations. I would prefer to use the translation from Mikkelsen 2013, which includes translations of both the 1775 and 1777 versions of the essay and other useful context.
• The next two sentences rely heavily on Mills 2017 "Black Rights / White Wrongs" but do not cite Mills. The third sentence uses identical grammar and quotations to Mills 2017 p.95, with minor changes to vocabulary. Apart from issues of plagiarism, they are in Mills voice, but are presented in Wikipedia voice, so at a minimum that needs to be corrected, either properly quoting Mills or rewriting to be neutral.
• The reference to the four temperaments in the next sentence is misleading. It leads a reader to believe Kant spontaneously applied ancient Greek theory directly, which contradicts Kant's logical nature.[Tolley 2006, “Kant on the Nature of Logical Laws.” 2006, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43155421] It also fails to acknowledge similarity to theories presented by Linnaeus that anticipate Kant's essay, and concurrent work by Blumenbach and by Buffon, who is cited by Kant.
• The closing sentence generally ignores the complexity of applying terms "scientific racisim" and "race" in this context. It requires applying an 18th century standard for science and a 21st century standard for racism. I'm wondering if there is a way to help readers.18th century science was still heavily influenced by theology. Indeed early theories by Linnaeus and Blumenbach were built on Creationism, so not very scientific. Note Kant's essay was almost a century before Darwin's "On the Origin of Species." Race was a very recent concept during this period [see Muller-Wille 2014, "Race and History: Comments from an Epistemological Point of View", doi:10.1177/0162243913517759] and not stable, for example the German words for "race" and "species" appear to have been interchangeable at the time [Zorn 2020, "Kant, a Racist?", DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1515/phw-2020-17156]

I would appreciate feedback on how to best address these questions. JBradleyChen (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh @Errantios @Dumuzid

In case you missed this latest comment. JBradleyChen (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't miss it, but can't help on your specific points. All the best. Errantios (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If you're sure the page-ranges are incorrect, there's no need to check in here before fixing them. If you happen to have pagination to the critical AA edition for the Kant material currently cited to another anthology, that would also be great to add (e.g., Kant APPV 7:xx).

I remain skeptical, however, with respect to your concerns about "Wikipedia voice" and speaking about the past from the perspective of the present. Thanks to your earlier contributions, there seems to me quite enough context.

The section is already long enough and amply well-sourced. If you are going continue to edit along these lines, I would encourage you to consider using endnotes for discussion of such technical matters as translational and methodological issues.

Also, remember that editors are not allowed to make their own arguments about material supported by reliable sources, which sounds like it is possibly what you are suggested with your comment, which I don't understand (did not read the article) about Kant's "logical nature."

You might also look at WP:TENDENTIOUS to be sure you do not cross any lines. I sympathize with your desire to boost/defend Kant, but editing with such a clear editorial point of view on a topic like race is an excellent way to get your account banned.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Understood; thanks for the feedback.

Is it a problem how the material in the article borrows from Mills? In case you don't have handy access, here is the relevant passage from pg. 95 of Mills 2017. The quotes and parenthetical are from Mills 2017:

Kant is also seen as one of the central figures in the birth of modern "scientific" racism.⁴ Whereas other contributors to early racial thought like Carolus Linnaeus and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach had offered only "empirical" (scare-quotes necessary!) observations, Kant produced a full-blown theory of race. JBradleyChen (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I would not worry about closeness of paraphrase in anything cited. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I've corrected the citations. For the sentence I quote above, seems like this situation might be improved by:

• making it a quote by Mills, properly cited
• leaving as-is, but citing Mills instead of all the others
• leaving as-is

Which of these three options do you think would be the most appropriate here? JBradleyChen (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Just use your judgment. There's no need to check in about little revisions like this. If someone has a problem with the change, they will just change it back and you can talk it out then.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - makes sense. Is the normal practice revert and then talk, or talk and then revert? JBradleyChen (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

In most cases of incremental improvements (as opposed to overhauling, removing, or adding whole sections), people generally just revert or overwrite the existing copy on their own authority. The onus of reaching out to discuss would be on the original author/editor who thinks the revision weakens the article. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

True, but when the text is already controversial or can be anticipated to become so, it is advisable to notify any non-trivial revision in Talk and seek comment. If there is no objection within maybe a week, it can be assumed that the proposal is acceptable.

(Now can we please stop adding within this thread, or we'll make it unmanageable again.) Errantios (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Noting some specific concerns in the section on Racism that seem like they need correction:

• There are no citations to actual works by Kant, just criticism of Kant. There should be links to primary sources.
• Most of the criticism of Kant seems to be from a single source, Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, who was on the faculty at DePaul but passed away in 2007.
• The citation attributed to "Kant 2010" is a book chapter by Eze, not Kant.
• The link to the Eze article is to copyrighted material. That seems like a problem.

JBradleyChen (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I count eight scholarly sources. Also Kant (2010) consists of excerpts from Kant's writings, and so it is entirely appropriate to cite him as the author. I have also added an editor field to reference to clarify this.

Also, to your top point, this most certainly would be a valid criticism of Kant's philosophy in his own time. It is in considerable tension, if not possibly outright contradiction, with his declaredly universal principles of reason. Indeed, according to the Kleingeld article cited in the final paragraph, Kant himself seems to have recognized and accepted this shortcoming in his anthropological thought. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I obviously am not familiar with the Kleingeld article or the "Kant 2010" material so I will spend some time on that. Given some of my concerns are incorrect, what would normal practice be, for me to revise in place, or post corrections?

Regarding criticism of Kant in his own time, it would be helpful to understand who criticized the social equity of Kant's beliefs during his own time, apart from his self-directed scrutiny. Granted I need to spend some time with Kleingeld.

Do you happen to know who helped develop the section on Racism? It would be great to understand what consideration was given to alternative points of view, and who need to collaborate on developing a more inclusive discussion of the topic. JBradleyChen (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You're most welcome. The material on racism was here before I took an interest in the page. All I've done is to pare a few things back, where possible, and move some material to the footnotes. Everything was very well cited, but its length was disproportionate to what makes sense in an encyclopedia overview of Kant's life and philosophy. With a little patience, though, you should be able to track down the original author by paging back through the article history.

To draft something that other people can see without altering the article, use your Sandbox, which can be found in the pull-down menu under the little person icon in the upper right (assuming you are looking at this in a normal web browser; if not, I have no idea). Other editors will very much appreciate doing this before making a big edit.

A suggestion: rather than trying to eliminate the language of racism – for the term clearly applies to Kant's racial categorization – you might look for critical reviews of the authorities cited or other scholarly sources arguing that these claims in the Anthropology and private correspondence are simply irrelevant to Kant's philosophical contributions. I don't know this literature at all, but there are definitely scholars who think that. Try keyword searches on Google Scholar or, if you have access, databases like Project Muse or JStor. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - this is helpful. I will also use the Sandbox when I'm ready to attempt an edit. Thanks for the tip. That said, I think I have some research to do before I attempt anything major. If you and @Errantios might be open to some of the more superficial changes I've suggested I would be happy to start with that. JBradleyChen (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't think I'm enough of a philosopher to contribute further on this. Good luck! Errantios (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @JBradleyChen, I've made a few minor changes along the lines you suggest. If you can find some good sources addressing this issue from another perspective, perhaps the section title would then be best changed to something like "Controversies of Kant's views on race." As the section currently exists, however, I think "Racism" is perfectly appropriate. Unless you would prefer "Racist views" or something along those lines. Kant lectured on this subject annually for twenty years and wrote multiple short pieces about discriminating among the races. We would do ourselves a disservice to whitewash that. To your larger concerns, anyone who discounts Kant's other works on the basis of these views alone is probably hopeless as a philosopher anyway, and the rest of us can only benefit from being forced to reengage with his practical philosophy with all of this material in mind. I haven't taught since grad school, but if I were to teach Kant's moral thought again (intro level, not my specialty) I would probably include excerpts from some of the primary source material of this section. I expect I would get considerably more student engagement on the foundational issues than one ever gets with, canonically, the stupid question about lying to the murderer at the door. Please do tag me in your sandbox whenever you might have something for review. I'm on and off with editing, but if I get a notice I should be able to take a look without much delay. Best wishes with the research! Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Woah that was fast! I did a bunch of reading last night and was going to work on changes over the next week. Sorry I am not prepared to draft this stuff off the top of my head!

Your changes look helpful. Some things I was also thinking to address:

• I am concerned that terms like "racism" and "scientific racism" are pejorative, reflecting our modern perspective on race, hence decontextualizing the topic and failing the standard of neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). To address this I was going to propose "Theory of Race" as a neutral heading, and avoid the term "scientific racism" except in reference specifically to the work of modern scholars characterizing historic work.
• To contextualize Kant's theories of race, I was going to mention that the theory of human race was a fresh topic in 18th century science, and the period controversy on monogenism vs. polygenism, where Kant was an advocate for monogenism. I was going to point out the primitive state of science, lacking theories of evolution or molecular genetics, such that many commonly held theories are absurd and sometimes offensive from a modern perspective.
• I suggest reducing discussions of miscegenation and anti-semitism to references within a sentence rather than full paragraphs. As presented, I worry it misrepresents Kant's relevance and impact. My sense is he was a participant repeating commonly held views, so small impact compared to his views that were groundbreaking, e.g. the Categorical Imperative.

I was going to finish reading more references before proposing changes, but if something along these lines sounds plausible to you I would be happy to start writing. That said it would take me a few days to turn around. JBradleyChen (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

All of this just sounds like you are trying to undermine (and misrepresent) the arguments of the authorities cited. No one is pretending to speak in the voice of Kant's contemporaries, and that is entirely fine.

The issue with Kant is theoretical, rather than physical, but one would not describe a man beating his wife within an inch of her life simply as "reminding her of her place in the home"—even if, at the time, this is how such behavior was regarded and would have been described. So too with the physical discipline of children. When we look back, we are horrified—and only all the more horrified by the fact that regular beatings and humiliation were at the time considered A-okay. These examples might be extreme, but I believe the analogy is strong.

For these sorts of reasons, I think that it is actually what you are doing (though obviously with the best of intentions!) that violates NPOV, namely, attempting to explain away and euphemize unsavory facts about a figure you admire for other, excellent reasons.

If you can cite to other Kant scholars engaging on racial issues from an opposing perspective, that would be great. Otherwise, I advise leaving the section as is. (The changes you propose would almost certainly be reversed, in any case.)

Another even more productive way you might promote the many admirable aspects of Kant's thought would be to improve the sections that treat those. "Political philosophy" and "Religious writings," for instance, need a lot of work, and "Moral thought" could surely be improved as well.

Sorry that I can't support this, but I do very much appreciate your continuing to come here for discussion before editing away willy-nilly.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Just want to chime in briefly here to say I agree with Patrick J. Welsh; the section on racist thought is presented about as neutrally as I can imagine. Kant's early thought on the matter is objectively racist, even if that carries a different moral stigma today than it did in his time. I am glad we contextualize it with a bit concerning Perpetual Peace, and if, JBradleyChen, you wanted to try your hand at drafting a brief sentence or clause saying something like "it was the fashion at the time" (with apologies to Grandpa Simpson), then I'd happily consider it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I will be coming back to this, but I would like to do some homework first.JBradleyChen (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay! Please see User:JBradleyChen/sandbox for a proposed addition to Immanuel_Kant#Racism. The only change is the addition of a paragraph at the end. JBradleyChen (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC) @PatrickJWelsh@Dumuzid In case you didn't see this, I put a proposed addition to Immanuel_Kant#Racism in User:JBradleyChen/sandbox. JBradleyChen (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @JBradleyChen,

This looks like a good source, and I have only a quibble with the paragraph you propose adding. Namely, I'm pretty sure the dialog format of the article is mostly a rhetorical conceit. Hume was dead, and the Kuehn biography of Kant mentions Foster only in noting that the 1788 "On the Use of Teleological Principles in Philosophy" is partially intended as a rebuttal of the latter's views on race.

So, if you are going to say there was something akin to a "serialized debate" maybe check with another source to be sure you're characterizing it correctly? It's entirely possible that Kuehn (or his indexer) just omitted additional information about more of a back-and-forth. (The easiest solution, of course, is just to avoid specifically characterizing the medium of the debate.)

Thanks again for discussing all this and for being genuinely responsive to feedback.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I mostly agree, though I think this is a bit much -- maybe half the length? We want to get the point across, but remember, Wikipedia articles are written for a general audience. You might just be too smart for your own good! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I will double check on 'serialized debate' and clarify the discussion. I believe the dialog was with Forster, although the prompt was from Hume.

Regarding length, I will review with regards to balancing the discussion of Kant's intent. That said, the point to be made here is contextualization, and at a certain point brevity destroy context.

If nobody objects I will incorporate this feedback and then post an edit in the next day or so. For some folks I figure that may be the only way to get engagement from all relevant stakeholders. JBradleyChen (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. As I say, I think we could reduce the length and still get the relevant context in, but should consensus decide that more is better in this instance, I will not quibble. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I plan to make an update later today with a new opening paragraph (preliminary version in sandbox) and a the new closing paragraph from the sandbox, revised to address feedback. Also, I am not okay with how "scientific racism" is currently used in this article. It commonly uses the Wikipedia's voice, implying a statement of fact. The problem is that "scientific racism" implies intent to use bad science to support racism, and that question of intent is opinion, not fact, and one of the main disagreements among modern Kant scholars. Also, Kleingeld never uses the term "scientific racism" in the cited article, and does not appear to agree regarding Kant's nefarious intent. So I may also make some adjustments there too. Geismann (in "Why Kant was not a Racist, Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik, vol. 30 (2022) 263-357) questions the use of "scientific racism" in competent scholarship. As always, @Dumuzid and @PatrickJWelsh I'm keen for your feedback. JBradleyChen (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Pls. review again the exchange above and see also scientific racism. Just because you don't like something and can find a scholar who doesn't either does not mean that you can simply remove or modify the views of well-established scholars whose position you do not want to be true.

If you go through with edits of the existing material, please do so on an individual basis. With so much outstanding disagreement, an edit that just pastes over what is currently there will be reverted.

That's it from me on this exchange — but my exhaustion does not signify any consensus beyond what I have already stated.

Best, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Posted. I held back on the scientific racism. I had understood mistakenly that scientific racism required intent to misuse science, but it appears to me that that is now how the term is used, at least in Wikipedia. I will come back to a further set of questions but for now I figure I should see how this lands.

I did remove a claim about Kleingeld and Kant's scientific racism. Having read the paper I believe it misrepresents her work. JBradleyChen (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If you are interested in scientific racism, please have a look at the talk page for that topic. I don't think it is doing good service to the community at this time, so I have proposed some changes. JBradleyChen (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You might also find interesting topics 51 and 54 in the Talk of Thomas Henry Huxley. Errantios (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Kant's Relevance to Moral Epistemology and its Relation to Meta-Ethics

What is the relationship between Kant, Moral Epistemology, and Meta-Ethics? Thank you. :) :) :) Thephoenix 1689 (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)