Jump to content

Talk:Immanuel Kant

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

English

[edit]

What the hell does 'pre-oriented' (introduction) mean? Do you mean 'affected', 'determined by' .... ? 82.39.166.176 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Critique of the Power of Judgment" and the term "aesthetic"

[edit]

The text in the "Aesthetics" section of this article states that "In the 'Critique of Aesthetic Judgment', the first major division of the Critique of the Power of Judgment, Kant used the term "aesthetic" in a manner that differs from its modern sense". The reference given for this is Critique of Judgment in "Kant, Immanuel" Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol 4. Macmillan, 1973 i.e. the first edition of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In the second edition (2006), page 25, we now read that "The “Critique of Aesthetic Judgment,” the first major division of the Critique of Judgment, uses the term aesthetic in what has become its modern sense", see https://ia601704.us.archive.org/23/items/encyclopedia-of-philosophy_202010/Volume%205.pdf. Does this represent a change from the first edition to the second edition of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or is this an error in the Wikipedia text? BobKilcoyne (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! I think the second edition is closer to correct. In its then-traditional sense, that of Leibnizian-Wolffian philosophy, "aesthetics" referred to the science of perception in general. In our sense today, it refers to the study of a more narrow set of categories or phenomena, of which the beautiful and the sublime are two of the longest standing. It is this latter sense that is the main topic of Part I of the CPJ.
According to Howard Caygill's 1995 Kant Dictionary, however, it's a bit more complicated:
Kant, consistent with eighteenth-century German usage, gives the term 'aesthetic' two distinct meanings. It refers to both the 'science of a priori sensibility' and the 'critique of taste' or philosophy of art. The first usage prevails in the 'Transcendental Aesthetic' of CPR, the second in the 'Critique of Aesthetic Judgement' - the first part of CJ.
As Kant himself notes in a footnote (CPR A 21/B 35), the two distinct meanings of the term were established by the Wolffian philosopher A.G. Baumgarten. In his Reflections on Poetry (1735) and later in his Aesthetica (17508), Baumgarten revived the Greek term 'aisthesis' in order to remedy problems in the areas of sensibility and art which had become apparent with Wolff's system. Wolff's rationalism had reduced sensibility to the 'confused perception of a rational perfection' and had left no place for the philosophical treatment of art. Baumgarten tried to solve both problems at once by claiming that sensible or aesthetic knowledge had its own dignity and contributed to rational knowledge, and that art exemplified this knowledge by offering a sensible image of perfection. (p.53)
Possibly, though, that's more background detail than we need on this page? If so, I think it would be fine to just update it according to the Macmillian Encyclopedia.
Cheers, Patrick (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before "expiring"/"his death"

[edit]

User:Jalapeño, you changed "before expiring" to "before his death", which I have reverted twice and you have re-reverted twice. As a native speaker of English, I might be a more reliable judge of English expression. Perhaps another native speaker would also support the original. Errantios (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to improve

[edit]

I added two edits: one stating the obvious fact that Kant's notions of space and time have been conclusively debunked by modern science, for which I provided three authoritative sources; and another clarifying that, for Kant, reason is the sole source of morality (whereas almost every philosopher before him claimed that morality derives from reason). Both edits were rejected without explanation. Why? 86.17.16.138 (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained both reverts to you, and wish you wouldn't make me repeat myself for no reason. The first is an incredibly egregious spin job—you cannot spin a change like "most discussed" to "most controversial" based on the two narrow citations—it's facially not verification for such a general claim.
The other was the exact opposite—the phrase Kant believed that reason is the source of morality is not vague, unclear, or in need of further qualification whatsoever, you're doing it just because you want to editorialize however you can manage. Remsense ‥ 论 14:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The operative skill is that I can read, and your sources simply do not verify the claim you are trying to add to the article. Citing those sources for those claims is lying about what the sources say. Remsense ‥ 论 14:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are not an authority on Kant and cannot claim to be one. Kant is controversial; his morality has been linked to the rise of Nazism and other forms of authoritarianism (not just by Arendt), so, of course, he remains a subject of debate. The problem with you is that you censor what you do not like, regardless of how justified it may be. Please stop doing so. Thanks.

Also, As I explained earlier, it is not factually correct to say that, for Kant, reason is the source of morality, as this would be true for most of Western (and Eastern) philosophy. What makes Kant peculiar, and highly controversial, is that reason is the "sole" source of morality.

You are not demonstrating basic ability to analyze language, so I cannot help you. You are simply, seemingly deliberately, wrong. Remsense ‥ 论 14:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is getting offensive, I am going to report you as it is not possible to engage with you in a civilised manner. 86.17.16.138 (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is offensive for you to say it is not factually correct to say that, for Kant, reason is the source of morality and expect me to believe that you actually believe that. Remsense ‥ 论 14:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are Immanuel Kant, are you? And I am not preventing you from editing material that has footnotes relevant tho this article, it's you the one doing that. 86.17.16.138 (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is I shouldn't have to be Kant, since I would be able to check the cited sources and make sure what you wrote was right—but you're trying to mystify the plain meaning of basic sentences and blatantly lying about what your sources say, so basic norms like WP:BURDEN were never in play here. Remsense ‥ 论 14:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. First, you must assume good faith, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Second, I don't think I raised any controversial issues: Kant is a highly controversial thinker, not only for his racism but also for his morality, which is completely detached from the human component and unrelational. Kant's claims about space and time (and the a priori) have been conclusively falsified. This aspect is uncontroversial for any modern scholar (in fact, I was surprised not to see any mention of this in the opening statements). As for morality, what makes Kant's viewpoint special is that it relies on reason alone to determine morality. Otherwise, it would have been a completely natural point to make—or at least nothing particularly special. Why do you insist on preventing others from getting a clear picture of this philosopher? 86.17.16.138 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources do not verify the claim that Kant is one of the most controversial philosophers in modern Western philosophy. This is simply not something they say or connote, and you have lied repeatedly that they do. You are lying to every reader of the article as we speak. Remsense ‥ 论 14:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the only problem, i can add more sources: can I do that or will you keep reverting the edit? 86.17.16.138 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the only problem is you are lying. Ideally, you;d have a source that actually says the thing you want to shove at the top of the article. Remsense ‥ 论 14:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is not good faith exchange. I have no ideas why you keep doing this, but please, just stop. 86.17.16.138 (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you never waste other editors' time like this again. Remsense ‥ 论 14:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a proper reply. You are preventing me from editing (lighlty) the article and to include sources. How can this be proper? 86.17.16.138 (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And besides, if that is your only point, why you keep reverting all edits? 86.17.16.138 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Immanuel_Kant&oldid=1280972567"