Talk:Critique of Practical Reason

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Umm....yes indeed. That's what I thought.[edit]

I think that these "collaborations" should stick to one artilce at most. Maybe one section, now that I think of it...--Lacatosias 13:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Boring!!![edit]

It is an excruciatingly BORING book, but someone has to do it. The postulates of reason... oh shit, Immanuel brother. Can't find a solution, it's all in the noumenal baby!!--Lacatosias 16:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Geeesh!! Kant is the Lord!! He should be worhipped as a god insetad of Jesus Christ (who may not even have actually existed). I have to strike out a number of truly nonsensical, off-the cuff comments that I made on some of these talk pages.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What dull minds find boring, sharp minds interesting. Robert Brown looked into a boring drop of water and observed interesting Brownian motion.Lestrade 23:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Editions???[edit]

In the dover Philosophical Classics edition, which I now have in my hand, the section consist of a preface, 3 chapters in the analytic, 2 in the dialectic and then the methodology of pure practical reason and the conclusion. The 3rd chapter of the analytic is entitled "of the motives of pure practical reason". It is unclear whether this is a differenc in editions, but its ommission from the page is alarming. Can someone clarify? it seems that some of the points from the chapter have been encompassed into chapter 2 of the analytic.

Incredibly Inaccurate[edit]

This article is flat out inaccurate on fundemental matters. In Kant's view - as expressed in this work - Freedom is revealed by the moral law, not God, for one thing. Who wrote this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.91.153 (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)