{"id":83,"date":"2003-09-03T23:16:38","date_gmt":"2003-09-04T07:16:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jokeofalltrades.com\/root\/?p=83"},"modified":"2003-09-03T23:16:38","modified_gmt":"2003-09-04T07:16:38","slug":"kantianism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/michaelhoke.name\/oldblog\/2003\/09\/03\/kantianism\/","title":{"rendered":"Kantianism"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>\nMy 1961 copy of Webster&#8217;s New Collegiate Dictionary defines <dfn>Kantianism<\/dfn> thusly:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote cite=\"Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1961\">\n<dl>\n<dt>Kant&prime;i&middot;an&middot;ism (-iz&#8217;m)<\/dt>\n<dd>\n<i>n.<\/i> The philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724&#8211;1804). He held that the mind furnished the forms of experience and the sense organs furnish only impressions. Our knowledge is therefore only subjective. But Kant shows the necessity of a belief in God, freedom, and immortality, if we are to have the institutions of civilization. And he further shows that without the a priori idea of intelligent design in nature we could not recognize any phenomena of life in plants or animals or other organisms.\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>\nNow, it has been more than 6 years since read much Kant, and I shouldn&#8217;t be considered an expert in <em>anything<\/em>, so I&#8217;m not in much of a position to critique the accuracy of the content of that definition. Certainly, the first half is reasonable, and I seem to recall him saying some things in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/exec\/obidos\/tg\/detail\/-\/0803277776\/qid=1062647068\/sr=1-1\/ref=sr_1_1\/104-0773062-0355159?v=glance&amp;s=books\"><i>Der Einzig M&ouml;gliche Beweisgrund&hellip;<\/i><\/a> that could be understood to mean something like the second half of the definition. I&#8217;d even be willing to say that the definition reflects a familiarity with Kantian philosophy about as well as any 5-sentence summary could hope to do.  What bothers me is the &#8220;But.&#8221; Without that little conjunction (that fails, I might add, to conjoin anything), the definition would present a (possibly imbalanced) survey of major themes and ideas Kant dealt with, presumably what one might hope to find in a dictionary. But the &#8220;But&#8221; transforms the definition into an <em>exegesis<\/em>, or an <em>editorial<\/em>, or perhaps an <em>apology<\/em> of Kantian philosophy, which I would <em>never<\/em> hope to find in a dictionary.\n<\/p>\n<p>\nA more recent (and concise) definition from our friend Webster may be found at <a title=\"n. The doctrine or theory of Kant; the Kantian philosophy.\" href=\"http:\/\/dictionary.reference.com\/search?q=Kantianism\">dictionary.reference.com<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n<p class=\"np\">\nNP: Sinead O&#8217;Connor, <i>Just Like U Said It Would B<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>My 1961 copy of Webster&#8217;s New Collegiate Dictionary defines Kantianism thusly: Kant&prime;i&middot;an&middot;ism (-iz&#8217;m) n. The philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724&#8211;1804). He held that the mind furnished the forms of experience and the sense organs furnish only impressions. Our knowledge is therefore only subjective. But Kant shows the necessity of a belief in God, freedom, and [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-83","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhoke.name\/oldblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhoke.name\/oldblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhoke.name\/oldblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhoke.name\/oldblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhoke.name\/oldblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=83"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhoke.name\/oldblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhoke.name\/oldblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhoke.name\/oldblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhoke.name\/oldblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}