Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Contemporaries of Kant

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I am not a student of the history of philosophy so I am looking to learn whether anyone could point me in the right direction.  I understand that Kant was deeply disturbed by Hume's skepticism.  When he had his The Critique of Pure Reason published (both Editions), what reactions did Kant receive from his contemporaries?   Were any of them "deeply disturbed" by The Critique?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Wikipedia article on Kant is good, I don't know why you might think you'll find something better here on an Objectivist site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant

"But Kant's fame ultimately arrived from an unexpected source. In 1786, Karl Reinhold began to publish a series of public letters on the Kantian philosophy. In these letters, Reinhold framed Kant's philosophy as a response to the central intellectual controversy of the era: the Pantheism Dispute. Friedrich Jacobi had accused the recently deceased G. E. Lessing (a distinguished dramatist and philosophical essayist) of Spinozism. Such a charge, tantamount to atheism, was vigorously denied by Lessing's friend Moses Mendelssohn, and a bitter public dispute arose among partisans. The controversy gradually escalated into a general debate over the values of the Enlightenment and the value of reason itself. Reinhold maintained in his letters that Kant's Critique of Pure Reason could settle this dispute by defending the authority and bounds of reason. Reinhold's letters were widely read and made Kant the most famous philosopher of his era."

This full biography is excellent:

http://www.amazon.com/Kant-A-Biography-Manfred-Kuehn/dp/0521524067/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376142559&sr=8-1&keywords=kant+kuhn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first exposure to Kant came to me from my Great Uncle.  When I was growing up, my family and I would visit every other Sunday or so.  At times, he and I sat in his Study and talked while playing checkers.  I noticed that he used a book to prop up one corner of an ornamental, wooden wastebasket.  The other three short legs were in place but the forth was missing. I asked him to let me fix it.  I lifted the wastebasket off the floor, said that I would be happy to make the repair and could do it in a few minutes.  He lightly waved me off and asked me to put it back as it was.  I complained that his prop, the book, doesn't even level the wastebasket because it's slightly shorter than the legs.  He said to me, "That book will never level anything not even a broken trash can.  That's why it's there. I use it to remind myself of that."
 
Two years later, my Great Uncle died.  Sometime well after the Funeral, we were cleaning out his house.   My Mom and I were in the Study pitching things.  I always wanted to fix that wastebasket, so I asked Mom whether I could.  She saw the book and suggested that I put it with his other books for the Library.  But I said that I wanted it too and changed my mind about fixing the wastebasket.  As a memento of him, I have both to this day.  That three-legged wastebasket in my Office is propped by that book.  
 
The book is a copy of Kant's 2nd edition of his Critique of Pure Reason.  Inside at the top of the Preface are these two words scrawled by my Great Uncle, "Beneath junk!" 
 
My second exposure to Kant came to me from reading Rand's, "For the New Intellectual".  There, she explained Kant in a few cogent paragraphs.  Ever since, I have been curious why so few people, if any, criticized Kant for what he was.  Especially around the time of the Critique's publications, why weren't intellectuals of his day not immediately dismissing him for dismissing reality and consciousness?  Were these people ripe for him?  Were they already softened by earlier corruptions?  Instead, why hadn't Philosophers been picking up the extraordinary work of Newton and asking themselves, "Now in his momentous science, we should easily find ample material to once and for all solve key philosophic problems- the problems of universals and induction?"  Between the geniuses of Newton and Rand, was there at least one intellectual who showed real progress toward universals?  Induction?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book is a copy of Kant's 2nd edition of his Critique of Pure Reason.  Inside at the top of the Preface are these two words scrawled by my Great Uncle, "Beneath junk!"

Let me guess: he was a Rand fan? I'm more likely to get worked up over Augustine, Hegel, or Marx. At least Kant's politics were good.

Here's a quote you'll like, from just a few decades after Kant's death:

“What a strange contrast did this man's outward life present to his destructive, world-annihilating thoughts! In sooth, had the citizens of Königsberg had the least presentiment of the full significance of his ideas, they would have felt far more awful dread at the presence of this man than at the sight of an executioner, who can but kill the body. But the worthy folk saw in him nothing more than a Professor of Philosophy, and as he passed at his customary hour, they greeted him in a friendly manner and set their watches by him.”

Heinrich Heine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me guess: he was a Rand fan? I'm more likely to get worked up over Augustine, Hegel, or Marx. At least Kant's politics were good.

Here's a quote you'll like, from just a few decades after Kant's death:

“What a strange contrast did this man's outward life present to his destructive, world-annihilating thoughts! In sooth, had the citizens of Königsberg had the least presentiment of the full significance of his ideas, they would have felt far more awful dread at the presence of this man than at the sight of an executioner, who can but kill the body. But the worthy folk saw in him nothing more than a Professor of Philosophy, and as he passed at his customary hour, they greeted him in a friendly manner and set their watches by him.”

Heinrich Heine

 

I talked with my Mom about it.  She said that she didn't recall his having read Rand.  He had many books in his Study.  As I remember it, he didn't have any of her works, quite a few on Aristotle but none on Rand.  (He died in '65.  He was 92.)  Also, I thank you for the quote from Heine. Even though it was decades after Kant, at least one relative contemporary of Kant called a spade a spade.

 

Would you know? Were there any intellectuals between Kant and Rand who made real progress wrangling with the problem of universals?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Wikipedia article on Kant is good, I don't know why you might think you'll find something better here on an Objectivist site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant

"But Kant's fame ultimately arrived from an unexpected source. In 1786, Karl Reinhold began to publish a series of public letters on the Kantian philosophy. In these letters, Reinhold framed Kant's philosophy as a response to the central intellectual controversy of the era: the Pantheism Dispute. Friedrich Jacobi had accused the recently deceased G. E. Lessing (a distinguished dramatist and philosophical essayist) of Spinozism. Such a charge, tantamount to atheism, was vigorously denied by Lessing's friend Moses Mendelssohn, and a bitter public dispute arose among partisans. The controversy gradually escalated into a general debate over the values of the Enlightenment and the value of reason itself. Reinhold maintained in his letters that Kant's Critique of Pure Reason could settle this dispute by defending the authority and bounds of reason. Reinhold's letters were widely read and made Kant the most famous philosopher of his era."

This full biography is excellent:

http://www.amazon.com/Kant-A-Biography-Manfred-Kuehn/dp/0521524067/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376142559&sr=8-1&keywords=kant+kuhn

 

 

While I was off from the forums I got to this book (based your recomendations) from a pervious thread. 

 

Thank you for that - It was a good read and put things in perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I thank you for the quote from Heine.

 

I better let you know that if you study the context you probably won't think so highly of the Heine quote. He was attacking Kant because he regarded him as an über-rational, and hence passionless, atheist. The destroyer of religion.

 

While I was off from the forums I got to this book (based your recomendations) from a pervious thread. 

 

Thank you for that - It was a good read and put things in perspective.

Glad to hear it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...