Talk:Neo-Kantianism

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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Modern philosophy

Merge Discussion begun April 2007

Neo-Kantianism

Do not merge Neo-Kantianism with Kantianisam. it is always better to have more than one articles on the similar subject, since, for example, some people are interested only in Neo-Kantianism philosopy, and if they find it convenient they can always check out the Kantianism page. But if you are searching Neo-Kantianism only, you may expect to find it on special page, apart from other articles, and it may happen that you don't even remember to search Neo-Kantianism in the Kantianism page. To conclude Neo-Kantianism should not merge with Kantianism. Dusan Kovandzic

It is better not to merge it, Neo-Kantianism is an important philosophical school that should be treated on its own. Note that this article could use some revision and improvement. Ehmhel 01:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely not. Removing the notice. Lycurgus 07:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article on Neo-Kantianism is rather lacking. The majority of the article is on the people who were influential in developing this philosophy versus defining the philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhowie86 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dawkins

Though by no means supportive of all of Kant's ideas, he advocates the Kantian framework view of perception at a TED talks interview a year ago. Oliverbeatson (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone has actual support for the contention that Richard Dawkins is a neo-Kantian (not just someone who said something about Kant in an interview, but a neo-Kantian) his name needs to come out. This is a very specific movement in German philosophy, and Dawkins, who is not even a philosopher, has nothing to do with it.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Ludwig von Mises

I put a ^{[citation needed]} tag on the statement, "Lange and Cohen in particular were keen on this connection between Kantian thought and socialism leading Ludwig von Mises to view Kantian thought as pernicious. Other sources, (e.g., [1]), suggest that Mises was actually influenced by Kant, which would imply that he hardly saw Kantian thought as "pernicious", (though perhaps he saw certain interpretations of Kantian thought as pernicious). EPM (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why back to Kant?

The article claims that "The 'back to Kant' movement began in the 1860s, as a reaction to the materialist controversy in German thought in the 1850s." I thought that the 'Back to Kant' movement was a reaction against German Idealism. After Kant had shown that proofs for the existence of God were not valid, the theological German Idealists (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel) were horrified and tried to re-instate God by naming Him the Absolute Universal Spirit [Geist]. Then they trivialized Kant by claiming that Kant's philosophy was simply a mere progressive historical stage or early phase on the way to their own philosophy. 'Back to Kant' was a movement that tried to nullify the transcendent metaphysics and theology of the German Idealists. Materialism was then a scientific reaction against German Idealism's unscientific philosophy of nature. Am I wrong?Lestrade (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Neo-Kantian positions

It would be useful for the article to provide more content exemplifying Neo-Kantian positions. As it stands, it reads primarily as merely a listing of philosophers' names regarding who influenced whom, without indicating what the influence consisted in.