DannyBoyPoker

Well I'm late to this thread, and it appears to have become somewhat contentious, but I just wanted to post a resource that might be interesting for the original question.  George Walsh, a philosopher who largely agreed with Rand's theses, maintained that she had misunderstood Kant on some fundamental issues.  He puts forth his own interpretation of Kant (limited to the area of metaphysics) in contrast to hers, and catalogs the areas where he thinks they are in agreement, and where their significant differences lie.  It is available online here:
 
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1/
 
The section "A Point of Misrepresentation" might be most relevant to this thread.  It begins:
 
 
It concludes with a summary of Rand and Kant's areas of agreement and disagreement.  Overall, a very illuminating and interesting read, one that (I think) does a good job at contextualizing what Kant's goals were and why he took the path that he did.

A long time ago, I was searching through the Objectivism CD for references to Kant, and put together the following:
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 
 
 

 
 

The Ayn Rand Letter
Vol. III, No. 8  January 14, 1974
Philosophy: Who Needs It
If you feel nothing but boredom when reading the virtually unintelligible theories of some philosophers, you have my deepest sympathy. But if you brush them aside, saying: "Why should I study that stuff when I know it's nonsense?"—you are mistaken. It is nonsense, but you don't know it—not so long as you go on accepting all their conclusions, all the vicious catch phrases generated by those philosophers. And not so long as you are unable to refute them.
 
In order for man to deal with the reality of his life on Earth, he needs to be able to distinguish when he's dealing with nonsense, and how to disregard it as such, or how to attack it head on.