A Few Kant Quotes

[Alfonso Jones]

My read on the whole Kant thing:

1) Kant is not the most evil man in history. He was profoundly wrong in many areas, but I see no evidence of evil INTENT. To refer to Kant as the most evil man in history is rhetorical overkill, but it is much more than that: It saps the condemnation due to the Stalins, Pol Pots and Hitlers of the world.

2) Kant is interesting in spots. I have tried to indicate a few examples of this. I don't find sufficient value to keep me coming back very often - but when someone says something about Kant (or anybody) as a key part of their argument, I like to check the source, and that usually means reading enough to get context. To do otherwise is to become a second-hander in the area of ideas.

Imaginary dialogue (me as the questioner):

"Why are you so vehemently opposed to and condemning of Kant?"

"He is the most evil man in history!"

"Why do you say that?"

"I read where Rand said so. And many of her followers have agreed with her."

"Have you ever read Kant yourself?

"No. I don't need to! I've been told he was evil!!!"

"Do you think for yourself?"

"It's too much trouble. He's hard to understand - I've read a couple of short quotes from him, and I didn't understand those."

"Are you impressed with the degree of independent thinking on this by Rand's followers in their condemnation of Kant? Have you seen evidence they have read Kant?"

"Well, I agree with them."

"Have you seen evidence Rand ever read Kant or showed first-hand knowledge of what Kant wrote?"

"I don't need to. I agree with her."

I just don't understand or sympathize with that approach. Philosophy as catechism is not my approach.

3) I'm shocked at the way some Objectivists can speak about Kant and never cite him directly. I listened to a 100 minute mini-course on Kant's "gimmick" by Adam Mossoff recently. After finishing that, I'm still not absolutely certain that Mossoff has read Kant other than snippets as quoted by others. He has read a few quotes by Kant, clearly. And he has clearly read what some others have said and read about Kant. Jason Rheins seems to be much better in this regard, and more substantial.

4) I am sorely disappointed in Kant's writing skills (lack of clarity). I make some allowances for him writing in German and me reading English translations. I find his prose to often be turgid. SOmetimes (the essay on What is Enlightenment which I posted, for example) he rises far above this. But I give no creedence to the sometimes-expressed that Kant was trying to pull something over on his readers, etc... The term psychologizing comes to mind in this regard (as applied to those who make the accusation). Kant's writing skills certainly keep me away from routinely reading Kant. I spend a lot more time reading the PreSocratics, Plato and the other Greek philosophers up to and including (nay, emphasizing) Aristotle - an order of magnitude of time. I look in my office and find two full shelves on Greek philosophy, but only about half a shelf of Kant.

That being said, I've posted enough quotes for the time being. The subject doesn't merit, in my assessment, more quotes. If commentary picks up on those quotes, I'll consider offering more.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Edited July 17, 2008 by Bill P

[Dragonfly]

4) I am sorely disappointed in Kant's writing skills (lack of clarity). I make some allowances for him writing in German and me reading English translations.

Ha! That reminds me of this discussion on RoR (before I was banned there for having dissenting opinions).

[Ellen Stuttle]

4) I am sorely disappointed in Kant's writing skills (lack of clarity). I make some allowances for him writing in German and me reading English translations.

Ha! That reminds me of this discussion on RoR (before I was banned there for having dissenting opinions).

Your comments about Kant start in the post below the linked one.

You were not banned on RoR. You were confined to the Dissent forum.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

Your comments about Kant start in the post below the linked one.

That is a peculiarity of RoR, that the link is shown in the middle of the page.

You were not banned on RoR. You were confined to the Dissent forum.

Which is a form of banning, as I no longer could participate in other discussions, moreover, I was also was put on moderation, so I couldn't even discuss freely on the dissent forum (but banishment to the dissent forum was already enough reason for me to quit RoR).

[Ellen Stuttle]

You were not banned on RoR. You were confined to the Dissent forum.

Which is a form of banning, as I no longer could participate in other discussions, moreover, I was also was put on moderation, so I couldn't even discuss freely on the dissent forum (but banishment to the dissent forum was already enough reason for me to quit RoR).

I see. You define "banning" to suit your circumstances. I'm not recalling that you were put on moderation, as well as being confined -- although maybe you were after I left. (The incident of your confinement happened the day before Larry and I left for a conference in Budapest.) I, however, was put on moderation for protesting your confinement.

I never posted there again after I got back home, since being put on moderation is an instance of the category "that up with which I will not put." (I'm imitating a story told of Churchill, who supposedly was told he shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition and responded, "This is that up with which I will not put." Or some such story.)

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0104.shtml#0

Ellen

Edit: PS: Further memory lane. Here's my last post on RoR.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0930.shtml#19

Joe's post announcing the confinement policy is the subject post on that thread.

___

Edited July 18, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Philip Coates]

1. > each may seek his happiness in whatever way he sees fit, so long as he does not infringe upon the freedom of others to pursue a similar end

Bill, thanks for the above quote. I had heard that Kant was a classical liberal and a defender in many ways of individual rights -- as was Hume -- two people with very bad fundamental philosophies in other respects, but thanks for giving me something I can point to when the subject comes up.

There is a difference between:

(i) essentializing -- "Kant (or Hume or Plato) had an enormously destructive and false philosophy in metaphysics, epistemology and much of? part of? ethics",

(ii) oversimplifying -- "Kant (or Hume or Plato) had nothing to say that was good, true, interesting, or valuable",

(iii) psychologizing -- "Kant (or Hume or Plato) was personally evil" or "Kant's goal was to destroy civilization and all enlightenment 3values".

Only one of the above three is valid. Guess which one?

2. The Kant copyright quote I simply skimmed - I simply *hate* long-winded people who could say the same thing much more briefly....Intellectual diarrhea usually militates against having enormous insight. But it seems as if he's defending intellectual property rights in a manner quite similar to how an Oist would...unless I skimmed too quickly. Again, another point for Kant for defending individual rights.

3. I disagree with you and several others who have adopted this fashionable principle among intellectuals and have repeated it in this discussion: the idea that one can't argue about, take a positon on, make any statement about any of the important philosophers without having read their original works.

The reason you and others are mistaken on this is that there are other sources for this information when the primary source is long-winded, inconsistent, hard to follow except for a specialist, etc. There are secondary sources which tend to be quite reliable, certainly on the basic thrusts of what a philosopher advocates -- dictionaries and histories of philosophy (W. T. Jones was the excellent series Peikoff recommended) and the like which one can normally rely on in one's discussion of philosophers and their systems. Just as one can use them to discuss the ideas of Darwin or Einstein or John Stuart Mill or Adam Smith, without having read the original sources.

After all, it's not like Hobbes was secretly a psychological optimist, or Hume a defender of inductive certainty, or Kant of an Aristotelian universe and everybody just missed it. :-)

[Philip Coates]

I am, however, sympathetic to the possibility that, in some cases, the conventional wisdom about a thinker or artist or creator may be wildly wrong. It's just that history tends to sift out these errors in the case of major thinkers in, say, a century or perhaps more, so you don't have to worry too much with regard to Kant and Plato. I also realize that Oist commenters, including AR can often oversimplify a thinker, a psychologist, an art movement. They are often -not- respectable, fair, scholarly 'secondary sources'. (I would no sooner take Harry Binswanger as a reliable source on culture or art or film than I would a passerby on the street. Rand is far better and, often though not always, quite reliable...and insightful.)

Take Impressionism in art: You have to sift thru a lot of junk to find the great works of genius, and if you just take AR's opinions and 'mind meld' with them sans processing or thought, you will never find what resonates with you among the Impressionists. Even in my case, I love Monet and Renoir, but had only seen a couple Van Gogh's that moved me (e.g., "Starry Night" is one) and seen a number of really bad 'fingerpainting' ones.

But that was until I went to the major exhibit collected from all points of the globe at the Met: "Van Gogh in Arles". There must have been fifty paintings there. There WAS junk there. But there were great works of genius (many before he started to go off the deep end): Raw emotions caught in paint, meticulous and careful detail showing a landscape, etc.

I have the catalog for Van Gogh in Arles somewhere. It is wonderful.

[Dragonfly]

I see. You define "banning" to suit your circumstances.

Not at all. Not being allowed to participate in any of the regular discussions is the same as being banned. That you may play in a separate corner with other banned people doesn't change that fact. Saying that that means that you're not banned is just legalistic bullshit.

I'm not recalling that you were put on moderation, as well as being confined -- although maybe you were after I left.

As soon as I'd written my last post.

[Dragonfly]

There is a difference between:

(i) essentializing -- "Kant (or Hume or Plato) had an enormously destructive and false philosophy in metaphysics, epistemology and much of? part of? ethics",

(ii) oversimplifying -- "Kant (or Hume or Plato) had nothing to say that was good, true, interesting, or valuable",

(iii) psychologizing -- "Kant (or Hume or Plato) was personally evil" or "Kant's goal was to destroy civilization and all enlightenment 3values".

Only one of the above three is valid. Guess which one?

They are all dead wrong.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I see. You define "banning" to suit your circumstances.

Not at all. Not being allowed to participate in any of the regular discussions is the same as being banned. That you may play in a separate corner with other banned people doesn't change that fact. Saying that that means that you're not banned is just legalistic bullshit.

OK. As you wish. I'd say that "banishment," the description you used in your final post, or "segregated," which I used in both of my last two posts (I also used "banishment" in the next to last) are the accurate descriptions, but one can define terms however one pleases.

Interesting that you were put on moderation after your last post. I hadn't heard of that development before.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

Interesting that you were put on moderation after your last post. I hadn't heard of that development before.

They must have forgotten to tell you. Anyway, it's just what you could expect from Rowlands.

[Ellen Stuttle]

A question for Phil.

Phil, you wrote in your post #71:

2. Roger's trichotomy quote - Response: I don't see this as anticipating Oism, the trichotomy has a very specific meaning (and this ain't it)

However, as Roger says in his post #82, he gave a detailed explanation about the similarity in his post #178 on the "Heresy" thread. (I also commented, seconding, in my post #179 on that same thread.)

WHERE do you see the difference in meaning which is so big that you discern, apparently, not even strongly similar features? What do you think AR's trichotomy is saying which is so...what? unique?

Ellen

PS: In case you aren't aware of this, being unfamiliar with list features here, the underlined post numbers are links which will take you directly to the indicated posts. Also, the little arrow to the right of the heading in the block insert quoting you will take the reader, upon being clicked, directly to your quoted post. It would be helpful if you'd learn to use these nifty link and quote features so people could find quickly the posts which you quote.

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It is unseemly to seemingly morally equivocate Rand and Hitler.

Brant,

What are you talking about?

Are you now studying with Valliant?

Hitler breathed.

Rand breathed.

That's an equivocation?

They both wrongly scapegoated targets. Just because Rand was Rand, that doesn't make scapegoating right if she does it and more wrong because Hitler did it.

The scapegoating both did are facts, not an equivocation. Scapegoating is wrong. Period.

Michael

[william.scherk]

It is unseemly to seemingly morally equivocate Rand and Hitler.

Brant,

What are you talking about?

Are you now studying with Valliant?

Hitler breathed.

Rand breathed.

That's an equivocation?

No. That's the wrong word . . . equivocation can be a logical fallacy when one word is used in two senses to tie together an argument. Equivocation also means a waffling, to be deliberately ambiguous, as in testimony -- a form of 'I really can't say.'

It is easy to miss the intended meaning of Brant's caution, a meaning I am sure you understand and support.

A better construction: It is unseemly (and wrong) to morally equate Rand and Hitler.

It is fallacious to equivocate on 'scapegoating' -- to leave the impression that since Hitler scapegoated Jews, and Rand scapegoated Kant, their scapegoating is the same.

Hitler led a murderous genocide against his scapegoats. Rand did not. They have little in common as moral monsters.

Please try to have bit more charity with your discussion partners, Michael. When someone points out a mistake, it is better to acknowledge it, rather than to accuse them of doing bad things -- as with painting Brant as a pupil of James Valliant.

[Philip Coates]

> Please try to have bit more charity with your discussion partners, Michael. When someone points out a mistake, it is better to acknowledge it, rather than to accuse them of doing bad things -- as with painting Brant as a pupil of James Valliant. [WSS]

Michael indulges in a lot of ad hominem. He seems to think his experience in Brazil developed in him a special insight, giving him a psychologzing license and enabling him to 'see into people's souls' and assess their motives. Often at some distance.

He did this recently with me, just in the last several days. He did it with Jim Heaps-Nelson, driving one of the most thoughtful posters away from the site. He did it with a whole bunch of people over on RoR which got a stunning array of people angry at him.

[sbeaulieu]

1) Kant is not the most evil man in history. He was profoundly wrong in many areas, but I see no evidence of evil INTENT. To refer to Kant as the most evil man in history is rhetorical overkill, but it is much more than that: It saps the condemnation due to the Stalins, Pol Pots and Hitlers of the world.

Bill,

Could it be that Kant was the first domino in a mindset that led to Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler effect? I could see that earning him the title erroneously. He did not commit their acts.

~ Shane

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

He seems to think his experience in Brazil developed in him a special insight...

Phil,

That's interesting. How would possibly know that?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Of course scapegoating that leads to murder is much worse than scapegoating that leads to close-mindedness and intellectual paralysis.

But in my view, these are differences of degree and not differences of kind. The "kind" is the result of the application, not the act itself (scapegoating = act, result = murder versus close-mindedness and intellectual paralysis).

So let's be clear. When I say Hitler scapegoated and Rand scapegoated, I am not saying that Rand was a murderer. I am saying they both committed the same nature of injustice, but to differing degrees.

I happen to think scapegoating is a horrible thing to do, whether one does it to Jews or a philosopher.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Could it be that Kant was the first domino in a mindset that led to Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler effect? I could see that earning him the title erroneously. He did not commit their acts.

Stalins, Pol Pots and Hitlers existed long before Kant was born. The absolute number of victims may have been lower, but that's only while there were far fewer people and they didn't have 20th century technology. The whole notion that Kant somehow is to blame for mass killings in the 20th century is absurd, the so-called philosophical links are pure fantasy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Another quick comment. If you wish to disagree with me or criticize me, I have no problem with that. However it would help if you got it right.

If you read my long post to you carefully, you will see that I talked about your acts and what your posts communicate to me. I did not talk about your motives. I happen to take you at your word on your motives, that you have some sort of autistic spectrum disorder, if I remember correctly. This means you might be well intentioned, but are deficient in social cues.

Irrespective of that, I still see that it is an error to talk down to experts. It doesn't matter what the motive is, talking down to experts will always result in abrasive conflict.

If you really want to get down, I learned at NA that repeating the same act over and over and expecting a different result is insanity. I ended up agreeing. I offer the same observation to you.

Now please, do continue your speculations about my motives.

EDIT: As to James Heaps-Nelson, you may find repeated inaccuracy "thoughtful." I do not.

Michael

[sbeaulieu]

Could it be that Kant was the first domino in a mindset that led to Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler effect? I could see that earning him the title erroneously. He did not commit their acts.

Stalins, Pol Pots and Hitlers existed long before Kant was born. The absolute number of victims may have been lower, but that's only while there were far fewer people and they didn't have 20th century technology. The whole notion that Kant somehow is to blame for mass killings in the 20th century is absurd, the so-called philosophical links are pure fantasy.

Agreed on Kant being blamed as absurd. My question was more directed at pinning down Kant as the most evil man due to the others' acts (again, absurd). I initially misread Bill's statement, thinking that Kant was to blame because of what they did (with him being the root of their evil). But they all did not follow Kant's philosophy in the little digging that I've done. Sorry for the confusion.

~ Shane

[Jonathan]

Okay, let's see if we can find a common point.

I'd prefer that you would give me a straight answer to my question: When you said that we have fundamental differences, did you mean that you have a grand, superior, romantic soul, that I don't, that you can't teach me how to evolve such a soul, and that such limitations in my ability to evolve are unfortunate because, if only I had a soul as wonderful as yours, I would generally agree with your judgments and opinions no matter how shoddy their foundations? Is that what you meant?

The core of someone's being is not something one is taught.

It depends on what you mean by "core."

Do you mean that the "core of someone's being" strictly governs whether he can be taught to avoid being shoddy and hasty in regard to intellectual matters? I think that almost any child can quickly be taught to will himself to be careful, fair and accurate despite having a natural tendency toward stubbornness, so I think that if you believe that you, as an intelligent adult, have a "core" which prevents you from willing yourself to accept criticisms of your ideas, to recognize your errors, change your opinions accordingly, correct your mistakes and apologize for your unfair judgments, then I'd have to say that it doesn't sound at all as if you have a "romantic soul" (at least not in the Randian sense in which "romantic" basically means believing in the power of volition), but that you appear to be quite deterministic -- that you think you're a plaything of a "core."

J

Edited July 18, 2008 by Jonathan

[Ellen Stuttle]

There is a difference between:

(i) essentializing -- "Kant (or Hume or Plato) had an enormously destructive and false philosophy in metaphysics, epistemology and much of? part of? ethics",

(ii) oversimplifying -- "Kant (or Hume or Plato) had nothing to say that was good, true, interesting, or valuable",

(iii) psychologizing -- "Kant (or Hume or Plato) was personally evil" or "Kant's goal was to destroy civilization and all enlightenment 3values".

Only one of the above three is valid. Guess which one?

They are all dead wrong.

Some comment about "essentializing" and the two interconnected oft-employed defenses whereby O'ists are prone to fend off criticisms:

-- "Essentialization" (or "essentializing") is repeatedly used as an Objectivist catch phrase in response to criticisms of errors of detail: the errors are supposed to not matter; the details are unimportant; one is to focus on "essentials."

-- "Integration" is repeatedly used as an Objectivist catch phrase in response to criticisms of flaws in Rand's logic: the slips in the logic are supposed to not matter; they aren't really "slips," you see, in the light of some higher (almost Hegelian-sounding) "integration."

-- And then, the clincher charge which greets those who persist in criticizing: "wanting to 'find feet of clay.'" Anyone who continues to argue that the errors in detail and the flaws in logic are there, and are significant, is soon accused of being focused on looking for the blemishes in greatness, of having desires to tear down a giant (AR). It can't be that the critic's motive is honest botherment because of the problems. There has to be an unattractive motive involved.

-

Phil, admittedly I've used your post as a springboard for making a much wider complaint. I'm turning backward against you a technique which you employ repeatedly: that of picking out some detail of what a poster wrote and using the detail as the basis for general remarks about what you call "meta-" issues. You are far from among the worst offenders on the score of the argumentative responses to which I'm calling attention. But you do use those sorts of responses. And they aren't valid responses -- not in the way they're used. It can be valid to object, when people become bogged down over details, that they're losing the forest in a focus on the trees, that sort of problem. But it isn't valid to dismiss errors as if they aren't there by claiming that they're of no relevance in the light of some over-arching "essential" rightness.

Errors are errors. And if a case makes enough errors, the case falls apart. No "essentials" will save it.

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

It is unseemly to seemingly morally equivocate Rand and Hitler.

Brant,

What are you talking about?

Are you now studying with Valliant?

Hitler breathed.

Rand breathed.

That's an equivocation?

They both wrongly scapegoated targets. Just because Rand was Rand, that doesn't make scapegoating right if she does it and more wrong because Hitler did it.

The scapegoating both did are facts, not an equivocation. Scapegoating is wrong. Period.

Michael,

I wish you had read my post with more care before writing this.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It is unseemly to seemingly morally equivocate Rand and Hitler.

I wish you had read my post with more care before writing this.

Brant,

I was responding to the first statement. I should have quoted it. Sorry.

The way it is stated, you either misunderstood my point or did not agree with it about scapegoating. Thus I found it seemly to express the idea in another form to make it clearer.

Michael