Kant was not a humble man.

[TuringAI]

I know that this section is supposed to be about GREAT civilizations, and Kant is not great, but I should probably point this out anyway. Kant, far from the stereotype of the stumbling philosopher who cannot even think about the rightness or wrongness of his own works, was a very belligerent man. Now he didn't just want control over his own philosophy, like Rand, and he didn't just choose not to associate with those who thought his philosophy was wrong, also like Rand, but he wanted the whole of humanity to accept the 'rightness' of his philosophy, hands down, no questions asked.

[

'Open Letter on Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre', Aug. 7, 1799: Kant, Philosophical Correspondence 1759 - 99, op. cit., pp. 253-54. For Kant's polemics, see Saner, op. cit., chaps. 6, 7. For the example of a single controversy, see H. E. Allison, The Kant-Eberhard Controversy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973). For further quotations from Kant, claiming that he and he alone was right, see Saner, pp. 203-204.

]

I'd laugh at him for this, if it weren't for the fact that he seems to be winning.

Edited September 30, 2008 by TuringAI

[Tenure]

Er, I don't happen to have those lying around. Could you quote a few passages? Cheers.

[KevinDW78]

Ditto. I am interested in hearng some quotes. I seem to have all my letters on Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre in a disorganized jumble with Kant's letters on Fanny Wietlezsnatcher. Darn my lack of organizational skills!

[Wotan]

I've never heard this claim before. Any evidence you can present to back it up, TuringAI?

[Capitalism Forever]

It isn't unusual for a man to believe that his philosophy is the correct one. It's only with the spread of postmodern skepticism that it became a matter of "honor" to assert that you are not certain about the rightness of your ideas and that the philosophy of any random bum may be just as valid as the one you arrived at by years of using your rational faculty.

Although Kant can be considered the father of postmodern skepticism (and generally, all things postmodern), he himself was not a skeptic. He held that knowledge about phenomena was possible, and that one could be certain in such knowledge--only it had nothing to do with reality. So it is not surprising that he claimed certainty with regard to his philosophy (but he forgot to add that it had nothing to do with reality!).

[eriatarka]

Kant distanced himself from Fichte because he was concerned about the number of people who were agreeing with what they saw as the 'spirit' of the Kantian system while disagreeing with the 'letter' of it (ie those who were inspired more by an aesthetic vision in his work [particularly the third critique] while ignoring his more fundamental points about the futility of speculative metaphysics). Fichte was one of the first and most prominent philosophers do this, and while Kant initially agreed with Fichte it soon became obvious that Fichte disagreed with huge parts of Kant's system (as would Schelling and Hegel afterwards, both of who were influenced by Fichte), so Kant published a few letters which stressed the differences between his ideas and the ideas of those who claimed to be following in his footsteps. Theres nothing remotely dishonest or arrogant about that, and I'm not really sure what evidence you could have for your claims.

but he wanted the whole of humanity to accept the 'rightness' of his philosophy, hands down, no questions asked.

Kant always stressed that his 3 critiques didnt complete the task of critical philosophy, nor did he deny that there was more to be done. The point isnt that he wanted everyone to agree that he had somehow completed philosophy and solved all open problems, its that he realised people like Fichte were abandoning his system rather than working to expand it (even though these people claimed to be Kantians).

This sort of thing is very common in philosophy - often the disciples of a great philosopher will initially try to contribute to and extend their mentors philosophy and then eventually abandon parts of it and go their own way, all while claiming that they are being 'true to the spirit' of the original system.

he didn't just choose not to associate with those who thought his philosophy was wrong

This just isnt true. Edited October 1, 2008 by eriatarka