h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant - an overview - A768864
Author: Noggin the Nog (formerly Sage) - U196230

Entry: The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant - an overview - A768864
Author: Noggin the Nog - U196230


What needs to be better explained?
Or explained less?
Factual innaccuracies?
Bad interpretations?

Hi Noggin,

When I saw this, I rather thought it might be your work!

This is a good start, but needs more unpacking for a more general audience. I think it's worth defining a number of expressions for non-philosophers: "tabula rasa", "A priori", "qualia" etc.

Also, I think you need to say more about the distinction between the phenomenal and noumenal realms, and between rationalism and empiricism. Perhaps also on realism and idealism, which I think might also be relevent??

I don't think that the final paragraph really does justice to Kant's ethics. Perhaps it's worth writing separate entries?

Otto

I have an admission: I did not read this article.

It needs tags.

The headers break up the text, and that's great but it's still one long page o' text. I'll check back later (after reading the article)

Friar

Will add the extra stuff and break it up into paras. accordingly.
I've put it on hold for the moment though as I've found an online translation of the Critique which I'm currently reading. Can't beat going back to the original!

Don't know how much additional work has been done, but this is looking quite good in terms of structure.

i always think it is a sign of lack of content when several (3) headers appear together on a single screen - perhaps just a little more in each would both clarify subject matter and improve the overall balance here.

since you say you are putting it on hold i will assume you don't want much feedback right now. All the best with this when you've finished reading the 'critique' (in fact, good luck with reading the 'critique'! )

oh yeah, one little typo for you - "guarAnteed"?

cya
spiff

Well, I've still got to add a section on the self, and some of it's a bit brief, but where do people find themselves saying
"How's that, then?"
or
"Run that by me again."

Well, to start with I'd like to take just the opening paragraphs.

The first sentence:

"Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is widely recognised as one of the greatest and most important philosophers of all time, but his work is still underappreciated, particularly among English speaking philosophers."

presents the problem of an apparent self-contradiction. Which is he, please - widely recognised, or under-appreciated? Or if both, could you explain further? Do you mean in the way that Shakespeare and Bach might be described as being both widely recognised and under-appreciated - or what?

"...The Critique of Pure Reason, pu[b]lished in 1781, produced a theory of metaphysics that he believed to be a "Copernican revolution" in philosophy."

OK, here you need to say what you mean by both "metaphysics" and "Copernican revolution".

"The rationalists, on the other hand, believed that Absolute truths, particularly of mathematics, geometry, and logic could be arrived at by pure cognition, but in that case how could their applicability to the external world be guar[a]enteed?"

Here you need to say what you mean by "pure cognition". Do you mean 'pure' as distinct from others kinds of cognition? - and if so, what other kinds? Or do you mean cognition alone? - in which case you should say so.

But 'cognition' involves thought, experience and the senses, so in what sense is the Rationalist view distinct?

Bels

Well, I've still got to add a section on the self, and some of it's a bit brief, but where do people find themselves saying
"How's that, then?"
or
"Run that by me again."



-------------

Hello?