Talk:Immanuel Kant

Before "expiring"/"his death"

User:Jalapeño, you changed "before expiring" to "before his death", which I have reverted twice and you have re-reverted twice. As a native speaker of English, I might be a more reliable judge of English expression. Perhaps another native speaker would also support the original. Errantios (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Impossible to improve

I added two edits: one stating the obvious fact that Kant's notions of space and time have been conclusively debunked by modern science, for which I provided three authoritative sources; and another clarifying that, for Kant, reason is the sole source of morality (whereas almost every philosopher before him claimed that morality derives from reason). Both edits were rejected without explanation. Why? 86.17.16.138 (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I've explained both reverts to you, and wish you wouldn't make me repeat myself for no reason. The first is an incredibly egregious spin job—you cannot spin a change like "most discussed" to "most controversial" based on the two narrow citations—it's facially not verification for such a general claim.

The other was the exact opposite—the phrase Kant believed that reason is the source of morality is not vague, unclear, or in need of further qualification whatsoever, you're doing it just because you want to editorialize however you can manage. Remsense ‥ 论 14:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The operative skill is that I can read, and your sources simply do not verify the claim you are trying to add to the article. Citing those sources for those claims is lying about what the sources say. Remsense ‥ 论 14:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are not an authority on Kant and cannot claim to be one. Kant is controversial; his morality has been linked to the rise of Nazism and other forms of authoritarianism (not just by Arendt), so, of course, he remains a subject of debate. The problem with you is that you censor what you do not like, regardless of how justified it may be. Please stop doing so. Thanks.

Also, As I explained earlier, it is not factually correct to say that, for Kant, reason is the source of morality, as this would be true for most of Western (and Eastern) philosophy. What makes Kant peculiar, and highly controversial, is that reason is the "sole" source of morality.

You are not demonstrating basic ability to analyze language, so I cannot help you. You are simply, seemingly deliberately, wrong. Remsense ‥ 论 14:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, this is getting offensive, I am going to report you as it is not possible to engage with you in a civilised manner. 86.17.16.138 (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It is offensive for you to say it is not factually correct to say that, for Kant, reason is the source of morality and expect me to believe that you actually believe that. Remsense ‥ 论 14:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you are Immanuel Kant, are you? And I am not preventing you from editing material that has footnotes relevant tho this article, it's you the one doing that. 86.17.16.138 (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The point is I shouldn't have to be Kant, since I would be able to check the cited sources and make sure what you wrote was right—but you're trying to mystify the plain meaning of basic sentences and blatantly lying about what your sources say, so basic norms like WP:BURDEN were never in play here. Remsense ‥ 论 14:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Not really. First, you must assume good faith, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Second, I don't think I raised any controversial issues: Kant is a highly controversial thinker, not only for his racism but also for his morality, which is completely detached from the human component and unrelational. Kant's claims about space and time (and the a priori) have been conclusively falsified. This aspect is uncontroversial for any modern scholar (in fact, I was surprised not to see any mention of this in the opening statements). As for morality, what makes Kant's viewpoint special is that it relies on reason alone to determine morality. Otherwise, it would have been a completely natural point to make—or at least nothing particularly special. Why do you insist on preventing others from getting a clear picture of this philosopher? 86.17.16.138 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Your sources do not verify the claim that Kant is one of the most controversial philosophers in modern Western philosophy. This is simply not something they say or connote, and you have lied repeatedly that they do. You are lying to every reader of the article as we speak. Remsense ‥ 论 14:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

If that is the only problem, i can add more sources: can I do that or will you keep reverting the edit? 86.17.16.138 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the only problem is you are lying. Ideally, you;d have a source that actually says the thing you want to shove at the top of the article. Remsense ‥ 论 14:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not good faith exchange. I have no ideas why you keep doing this, but please, just stop. 86.17.16.138 (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I hope you never waste other editors' time like this again. Remsense ‥ 论 14:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not a proper reply. You are preventing me from editing (lighlty) the article and to include sources. How can this be proper? 86.17.16.138 (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I have to sit here being furious that your careless lying is still sitting at the top of the article, so do not whine about me preventing you from doing anything. Remsense ‥ 论 14:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear IP, please self-revert until such time as you attain consensus for your desired changes. Thank you, Patrick (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

And besides, if that is your only point, why you keep reverting all edits? 86.17.16.138 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

IP: After struggling through After Finitude I think it's being a bit too reductive to just say "Kant's views on space and time are discredited" - while there is a strong critique of Kant's views in that regard, especially at the metaphysical level, this critique is highly technical, complicated, and part of ongoing scholarship. Flatly put: if Quentin Meillassoux has not yet put the final nail in the coffin of the Critique of Pure Reason then I don't think Wikipedia should either. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

rounding out the lead

To improve the lead section of the Immanuel Kant Wikipedia article, it is appropriate to insert the sentence: “He is often credited with bridging rationalism and empiricism and is sometimes referred to as the 'father of modern philosophy.'” This change aligns with Wikipedia's Manual of Style for lead sections, which states that the lead "should summarize the most important points" and "establish context." Kant's synthesis of rationalism and empiricism is widely acknowledged in scholarly literature and is central to his philosophical legacy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes him as the key figure who “synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism,” while the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy also recognizes this synthesis as foundational to his work. Furthermore, the statement about Kant being referred to as the "father of modern philosophy" is verifiable and attributed in reputable sources. Per Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy, content must be backed by reliable sources—which this proposal satisfies. Including this sentence helps orient readers to Kant's historical significance and philosophical contributions from the outset, fulfilling Wikipedia’s mission to present clear, accurate, and comprehensive summaries to the general public. how many agree? BauhausFan89 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

"the father of modern philosophy" is not Kant. So this is subjective puffery, and WP:YESPOV to boot. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

You're both wrong, it was Hume.

All joking aside, this is something very subjective which we should probably leave out. Simonm223 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

according to the talk above I reverted my line to "often credited with co-starting modern philosophy" that is cleary sources and well argued for in the following: 1. Complies with WP:LEAD

The lead section of a Wikipedia article is intended to summarize the most important, defining aspects of a subject. Per WP:LEAD, it should “identify the topic and summarize why it is notable.” Kant’s historical role in bridging rationalism (e.g., Descartes, Leibniz) and empiricism (e.g., Locke, Hume), culminating in the Critical Philosophy, is universally acknowledged as a central reason for his notability.

2. Fulfills WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT

According to WP:DUE, Wikipedia should reflect views in proportion to how they are held by reliable sources. The characterization of Kant as bridging rationalism and empiricism and initiating modern philosophy is a mainstream academic view found in:

The Cambridge Companion to Kant

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Encyclopedia Britannica

University curricula worldwide

Therefore, stating he is “often credited” with these developments appropriately reflects the prevailing scholarly consensus.

3. Meets WP:V and WP:RS

The phrase is verifiable through reliable sources, including:

(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010): “Kant synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism.”

Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press academic texts.

Scholarly secondary sources cited in the body of the article.

No original research is being introduced; it is a summary of reliably documented scholarly views.

4. Avoids MOS:PUFFERY

The phrase does not violate MOS:PUFFERY. It uses neutral, attributed language — “often credited with” — which signals that this is a commonly held scholarly opinion, not an unsourced proclamation. It avoids peacock terms like “greatest,” “foremost,” or “revolutionary.”

5. Consistent with WP:NPOV

The statement is framed to align with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV). It does not assert Kant is the originator of modern philosophy outright, but rather that he is “often credited with” that role — a phrasing that reflects attribution and avoids editorial bias. BauhausFan89 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Not a summary of the body. Still puffery. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

you keep repeating an defeated argument, see my post above. if you dont find anything better just let me finish summarizing his body of work, as you claimed you want to also. BauhausFan89 (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

An argument isn't 'defeated' just because you say that it is. You'll need to actually secure agreement from others to form a consensus. Declaring victory and then edit warring won't work. MrOllie (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The "synthesis of empiricism and rationalism" is a common frame in broad histories of Western philosophy. Based on my limited reading, however, it is not featured in much actual Kant scholarship. If you have research indicating that it should be included in the article, please add it to the article before placing it in the lead.

Also, weasel words don't correct puffery, and crediting him with "co-starting modern philosophy" raises more questions than it answers. Just let's let Kant's intellectual accomplishments speak for themselves! The current version is, if anything, too heavy-handed in even its current form. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)