Talk:Critique of the Kantian philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Low-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Destructive or Constructive?[edit]

The list of Kant's merits is short, as compared with the list of defects. However, Schopenhauer believed that the merits were extremely valuable. The defects were important, but did not cancel the value of the merits.


Wittgenstein and Tolstoy learned their Kant by reading Schopenhauer's criticism.


When Kant positioned the faculty or power of judgment between understanding and reason (Critique of Judgment), it recalled his positioning of schemata between time and understanding (Critique of Pure Reason).

Separate Provinces of Nature[edit]

Schopenhauer's position about the total separateness of the different provinces of nature does not seem to be in accord with modern science. Contemporary scientists seek to unify the separate branches of science.


It almost seems that Kant's overriding interest was with showing that subjective knowledge cannot be assumed to be objective knowledge.


I've removed the top-level category here, and replaced it with category:Philosophical arguments. Someone with more experience in this area might wish to consider what other cats the article should involve. Banno 03:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi according to me there is an error in this article

Concepts of Reason (Ideas of God, Freedom, and Immortality).

I, reading my school book (written by existentialist philosopher Nicola Abbagnano) learned that according to Kant the concepts of the reason are the ideas of God (rational theology), World (rational cosmology) and Soul (rational psycology), not Freedom and Immortality. -- (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Cosmological Idea results from the application of reason to the world that we know through our senses. We think about the series of connections to the point where our thoughts go beyond all possible experience. As we reason, we continually and repeatedly ask "Why?" or "What is the reason?". There are four parts to this Idea: (1) the infinity of space and time, (2) atoms, or indivisible simple elements, (3) free will, or effects without causes, and (4) an absolutely necessary cause. In the case of freedom, we suppose that an effect can be produced that is not determined, conditioned, or caused by any previous influence. This Cosmological Idea is sometimes thought of as simply the transcendental idea of freedom in the world.
The Psychological Idea is the Ego, Apperception, I, Self, or Soul. It results from thinking that there must be an underlying substance that is the basis or ground of all of our thinking. Our thoughts are always changing but the thinking substance is assumed to be permanent. As a result, the Psychological Idea is sometimes thought of as simply the transcendental idea of the immortality of the soul.Lestrade (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

suggestion for article[edit]

Needs an "In popular culture" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why?Lestrade (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Article title[edit]

Why "Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy"? Would "Schopenhauer's criticism of Kantian philosophy" be better? Or maybe "Schopenhauer's criticism of Immanuel Kant"? The current title sounds odd. Srnec (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The appendix to Volume I of Schopenhauer's main work was given the title Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy.Lestrade (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

The title sounds odd to Srnec, but it didn't sound odd to Richard Haldane and John Kemp when they published their translation in 1891 of Schopenhauer's "Kritik der Kantischen Philosophie." Lt. Col. E. F. J. Payne didn't find it odd when he published his translation in 1958. So we have a scale that balances Srnec on one side and Haldane, Kemp, and Payne on the other side. Unfortunately, the three English gentlemen who published their translations are deceased. Srnec has the advantage of being alive. Therefore, Srnec is a Wikipedia Winner and that is how the game is played.Lestrade (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Let's ask the man himself. In his letter to Francis Haywood on December 21, 1829, Schopenhauer wrote: "…I grafted onto his [Kant's] my own system which appeared 1819, bearing the title 'Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung' — to this belongs a long appendix containing 'Critic of the Kantian philosophy' …." This was written in Schopenhauer's own English, not in German.Lestrade (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
I see that Srnec has moved it as he thought correct. If you move it back, as I understand your reasoning I think it should be Criticism not criticism, perhaps even Critic as we are not merely referring to Shopenhauer's act of criticizing Kant's philosophy, but specifically to his appendix called Critic of the Kantian philosophy. Perhaps simply Critic of the Kantian Philosophy would be even better I think. I am not being bold with the move to Crcitic of the Kantian Philosophy as it seems like something many people may object to. Wwmargera (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, screw that. I am moving it. Please move back if you object, etc. Wwmargera (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I vote that it stays as it is now (critic of the) (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The German word "Kritik" means, in English, "criticism" or "critique." The German word "Kritiker" means, in English, "critic." In English, the title of Schopenhauer's work is "Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy." It is ignorant, stubborn, and contrary to insist that the title should be "Critic of the Kantian philosophy" instead of "Criticism of the Kantian philosophy." The current title, however, is perfectly consistent and in accord with Wikipedia standards, which are at the level of a fourteen year–old who has never read a book by Schopenhauer, or, probably, any other origin work by a philosopher. The article was well–intended but is really useless and a waste of space because the people who would benefit will never read it or know that it exists. The best thing that could happen is that it should be subjected to continuous and gradual vandalism, preferably by teenagers in a North American high school, until it reaches the point of being complete gibberish.Lestrade (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Since this article exists only in English it's worth reading and it's a good thing that some people took the oain to write it. [[User talk:Flocon]talk]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been many critiques of Kant's philosophy. In the first few decades, there were critiques or criticisms by empricists, rationalists, and idealists. Since then, there have been a great number of criticisms. This article, however, is supposed to reference only one criticism. It is the criticism that Schopenhauer attached as an appendix to the first volume of his major work. The title of this article should reflect this specific reference. When the article was first created, its title was Criticism of the Kantian philosophy (Schopenhauer). This original title follows the title as printed in Payne's English translation and also indicates that Schopenhauer was the author, not Garve, Jacobi, Reinhold, Schulze, Maimon, Strawson, Ayer, Lewis, Nietzsche, Peirce or any of the other many writers who critiqued Kant's philosophy.Lestrade (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

I find this article perhaps dubious, though not especially for its content, as far as that goes..[edit]

As a reader of both Kant and Schopenhauer, I came across this article which is, I note, entirely devoted to Schopenhauer's criticisms of Kant. I think if it were straightforwardly titled 'Schopenhauer's criticisms of Kant', it might seem a bit esoteric for Wiki, but that's really all that is going on, here. Every major philosopher since Kant, and this is probably utterly without exception, has his criticisms of Kant. I don't think that Schopenhauer's particular criticisms have been massively influential. In the end, Schopenhauer counts himself as a Kantian, so in the larger landscape, his criticisms are going to look like quibbles, this is for example, I think, true of mainstream Anglo-American Analytic philosophy. Frege and Russell, foundational figures here, both had their criticisms of Kant, but that's quite a different discussion.

Also, even if we insist on a Wiki article detailing Schopenhauer's criticisms of Kant, there's more of Schopenhauer's criticisms of Kant. Such as, his view of the Kantian antimonies, Schopenhauer took these to be sophistry, he rejected all four of them, in a similar fashion, by embracing the antithesis, and rejecting the thesis. Kant's antimonies have attracted a fair amount of attention, and Schopenhauer's view is a minority view indeed, even among those who reject Kant's antimonies. The Wiki article on Kant's antimonies doesn't even mention Shopenhauer, which I can understand. One can always discuss Schopenhauer under 'Schopenhauer'.

Now, I find Schopenhauer interesting. I'm just quite confident, that the only relevance that this article can have, at least currently, will be for those who find Schopenhauer interesting. And even if they do, there's little effort to reply on Kant's behalf, to these criticisms. The article could be developed further in this direction, though again, I'm not sure if just any- and everything, such as this, falls under wikipedia's scope. I guess it can't hurt, but the article's title is still misleading.

DanLanglois (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Taking “dubious” to mean “causing doubt and uncertainty,” what is it about the article that raises doubt and uncertainty in your mind? You are absolutely correct about the article’s title. The article is supposed to be specifically about Schopenhauer’s criticism of the Kantian philosophy, published as an appendix to Schopenhauer’s main work. It is not supposed to be an article about other people’s criticism of Kant’s works. Please note my statement, shown above, dated 29 December 2010. At one time, briefly, the title was “Schopenhauer’s criticism of the Kantian philosophy,” but Schopenhauer’s name was quickly omitted. By the way, Schopenhauer’s criticism of Kant’s antinomies is included in the “Ideas of reason” section.Lestrade (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Lestrade
Indeed, the issue of the antimonies is mentioned here, which I had neglected. Actually, I rather like my summary, though --Schopenhauer rejected all of them as antimonies, always because he rejected the thesis, while embracing the antithesis. Currently the article mentions this and that antimomy, without giving this big picture. DanLanglois (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Tom Regan's critique of Kant's categorical dismissal of animals' claims to moral reverence[edit]

The article on Kantian Ethics cites NCSU's Dr. Tom Regan's critique of Kant's categorical dismissal of animals' claims to moral reverence:

Animal ethics

Because Kant viewed rationality as the basis for being a moral patient—one due moral consideration—he believed that animals have no moral rights. Animals, according to Kant, are not rational, thus one cannot behave immorally towards them. Although he did not believe we have any duties towards animals, Kant did believe being cruel to them was wrong because our behaviour might influence our attitudes towards human beings: if we become accustomed to harming animals, then we are more likely to see harming humans as acceptable.
Ethicist Tom Regan rejects Kant's assessment of the moral worth of animals on three main points: First, he rejects Kant's claim that animals are not self-conscious. He then challenges Kant's claim that animals have no intrinsic moral worth because they cannot make moral judgement. Regan argues that, if a being's moral worth is determined by its ability to make a moral judgement, then we must regard humans who are incapable of moral thought as being equally undue moral consideration. Regan finally argues that Kant's assertion that animals exist merely as a means to an ends is unsupported; the fact that animals have a life that can go well or badly suggests that, like humans, they have their own ends.

I think we should have a few lines on this specific criticism, which I think is grounded in observation, not imputation. MaynardClark (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)