Instruct: Given a question, retrieve relevant passages that can help answer the question.
Query: When was Kant born?
Immanuel Kant (/kænt/;[15] German:[ʔɪˈmaːnu̯eːl ˈkant, -nu̯ɛl -];[16][17] 22 April 1724– 12 February 1804) was a German philosopher who is a central figure in modern philosophy.[18] In his doctrine of transcendental idealism, he argued that space, time and causation are mere sensibilities; "things-in-themselves" exist, but their nature is unknowable.[19][20] In his view, the mind shapes and structures experience, with all human experience sharing certain structural features. He drew a parallel to the Copernican revolution in his proposition that worldly objects can be intuited a priori ("beforehand"), and that intuition is therefore independent from objective reality.[21] Kant believed that reason is the source of morality, and that aesthetics arise from a faculty of disinterested judgment. Kant's views continue to have a major influence on contemporary philosophy, especially the fields of epistemology, ethics, political theory, and post-modern aesthetics.
The museum also contained an exhibit of Immanuel Kant artifacts ("Kantiana"), previously located in the Königsberg Public Library. These included Kant's hat, shoe buckles, walking stick, testament, death mask, and numerous pictures and sculptures. The exhibit, which was especially popular with foreign-born Kant followers, expanded into the Kant-Museum in 1938, the same year that Fritz Gause became director of the museum.
Reviews were assuming Kant was the author when Kant cleared the confusion and openly praised the work and author. Fichte's reputation skyrocketed as many intellectuals of the day were of the opinion that it was "the most shocking and astonishing news... [since] nobody but Kant could have written this book. This amazing news of a third sun in the philosophical heavens has set me into such confusion". Karl Popper considers the book as essentially "a fraud" which though rather boring cleverly imitated Kant's style and that the rumours that Kant himself had written the book to be contrived. Kant waited seven years to make public statement about the incident; after considerable external pressure he dissociated himself from Fichte. In his statement, he inscribed, "May God protect us from our friends. From our enemies, we can try to protect ourselves."
It was built by Theodore Henry Kant (1856-1931), who was born in Poznan, Germany and immigrated to the U.S. in 1881.
Kant believed that the anonymous review was biased and deliberately misunderstood his views. He discussed it in an appendix of the "Prolegomena", accusing its author of failing to understand or even address the main issue addressed in the "Critique of Pure Reason", the possibility of synthetic a priori judgments, and insisting on the distinction between transcendental idealism and the idealism of Berkeley. In a letter to Kant, the philosopher Christian Garve admitted to having written the review, which he disowned due to editorial changes outside his control. Though Garve did not inform Kant of this, the changes were made by J. G. Feder. Following the controversy over Garve's review, there were no more reviews of the "Critique of Pure Reason" in 1782 except for a brief notice. The work received greater attention only in 1784, when Shultz's commentary was published and a review by the philosopher and historian of philosophy Dietrich Tiedemann was published in the "Hessische Beyträge zur Gelehrsamkeit und Kunst". Tiedemann attacked the possibility of the synthetic "a priori" and defended the possibility of metaphysics. He denied the synthetic status of mathematical judgments, maintaining that they can be shown to be analytic if the subject term is analyzed in full detail, and criticized Kant's theory of the "a priori" nature of space, asking how it was possible to distinguish one place from another when the parts of absolute space are identical in themselves. Kant's issued a hostile reaction. Kant maintained that Tiedemann did not understand the problems facing the critical philosophy.
The Kyrgyz word for sugar is "kant", and the city received its name when a sugar plant was built there in the 1930s. (It is an often repeated myth that the town was named after the German philosopher Immanuel Kant).
Kant's mother, Anna Regina Reuter[27] (1697–1737), was born in Königsberg (since 1946 the city of Kaliningrad, Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia) to a father from Nuremberg. (Her surname is sometimes erroneously given as Porter.) Kant's father, Johann Georg Kant (1682–1746), was a German harness maker from Memel, at the time Prussia's most northeastern city (now Klaipėda, Lithuania). Immanuel Kant believed that his paternal grandfather Hans Kant was of Scottish origin.[28] While scholars of Kant's life long accepted the claim, there is no evidence that Kant's paternal line was Scottish; it is more likely that the Kants got their name from the village of Kantwaggen (today part of Priekulė) and were of Curonian origin.[29][30] Kant was the fourth of nine children (four of whom reached adulthood).[31]
Justice Surya Kant (born 10th February, 1962) is an Indian Judge and the present Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Gretha Kant (born 20 August 1945) was a Norwegian politician for the Conservative Party.
When Kant emerged from his silence in 1781, the result was the Critique of Pure Reason. Although now uniformly recognized as one of the greatest works in the history of philosophy, this Critique was largely ignored upon its initial publication. The book was long, over 800 pages in the original German edition, and written in a convoluted style. It received few reviews, and these granted it no significance. Kant's former student, Johann Gottfried Herder criticized it for placing reason as an entity worthy of criticism instead of considering the process of reasoning within the context of language and one's entire personality.[58] Similar to Christian Garve and Johann Georg Heinrich Feder, he rejected Kant's position that space and time possessed a form that could be analyzed. Additionally, Garve and Feder also faulted Kant's Critique for not explaining differences in perception of sensations.[59] Its density made it, as Herder said in a letter to Johann Georg Hamann, a "tough nut to crack", obscured by "all this heavy gossamer".[60] Its reception stood in stark contrast to the praise Kant had received for earlier works, such as his Prize Essay and shorter works that preceded the first Critique. These well-received and readable tracts include one on the earthquake in Lisbon that was so popular that it was sold by the page.[61] Prior to the change in course documented in the first Critique, his books sold well, and by the time he published Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime in 1764 he had become a notable popular author.[62] Kant was disappointed with the first Critique's reception. Recognizing the need to clarify the original treatise, Kant wrote the Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics in 1783 as a summary of its main views. Shortly thereafter, Kant's friend Johann Friedrich Schultz (1739–1805) (professor of mathematics) published Erläuterungen über des Herrn Professor Kant Critik der reinen Vernunft (Königsberg, 1784), which was a brief but very accurate commentary on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
The "Critique of Pure Reason" was the first of Kant's works to become famous. According to Frederick C. Beiser, the work helped to discredit rationalist metaphysics of the kind associated with Leibniz and Wolff which had appeared to provide "a priori" knowledge of the existence of God, although Beiser notes that this school of thought was already in decline by the time the "Critique of Pure Reason" was published. In his view, Kant's philosophy became successful in the early 1790s partly because Kant's doctrine of "practical faith" seemed to provide a justification for moral, religious, and political beliefs without an "a priori" knowledge of God. However, the "Critique of Pure Reason" received little attention when it was first published. Kant did not expect reviews from anyone qualified to appraise the work, and initially heard only complaints about its obscurity. The theologian and philosopher Johann Friedrich Schultz wrote that the public saw the work as "a sealed book" consisting in nothing but "hieroglyphics". The first review appeared in the "Zugaben zu den Göttinger gelehrte Anzeigen" in 1782. The review, which denied that there is any distinction between Kant's idealism and that of Berkeley, was anonymous and became notorious. Kant reformulated his views because of it, redefining his transcendental idealism in the "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics" (1783) and the second edition of the "Critique of Pure Reason". The review was denounced by Kant, but defended by Kant's empiricist critics, and the resulting controversy drew attention to the "Critique of Pure Reason".
Lewis Kant (born 1952 in Buenos Aires) is an Argentine-born Mexican artist and writer who has lived most of his life in Guadalajara, Jalisco. His work has been displayed at galleries in Mexico, Europe and North America.
Julio Cabrera, David Benatar (born 1966), and Karim Akerma all argue that procreation is contrary to Immanuel Kant's practical imperative (according to Kant, a man should never be used as a means to an end, but always be an end in himself). They argue that a person can be created for the sake of his parents or other people, but that it is impossible to create someone for his own good; and that therefore, following Kant's recommendation, we should not create new people. Heiko Puls argues that Kant's considerations regarding parental duties and human procreation in general imply arguments for an ethically justified antinatalism. Kant, however, according to Puls, rejects this position in his teleology for meta-ethical reasons.
Maier was born in Kant, but emigrated with his parents to Osnabrück, Germany when he was just 10 months old.
Second, a maxim might fail by generating what Kant calls a ‘contradiction in willing’. (4:424) This sort of contradiction comes about when the universalized maxim contradicts something that rational agents necessarily will. For example, a person might have a maxim never to help others when they are in need. However, Kant thinks that all agents necessarily wish for the help of others from time to time. Therefore, it is impossible for the agent to will that her maxim be universally adopted. If an attempt to universalize a maxim results in a contradiction in conception, it violates what Kant calls a perfect duty. If it results in a contradiction in willing, it violates what Kant calls an imperfect duty. Perfect duties are negative duties, that is duties not to commit or engage in certain actions or activities (for example theft). Imperfect duties are positive duties, duties to commit or engage in certain actions or activities (for example, giving to charity). In the "Groundwork", Kant says that perfect duties never admit of exception for the sake of inclination (4:421n), which is sometimes taken to imply that imperfect duties "do" admit of exception for the sake of inclination. However, in a later work ("The Metaphysics of Morals)", Kant suggests that imperfect duties only allow for flexibility in how one chooses to fulfill them. Kant thinks that we have perfect and imperfect duties both to ourselves and to others.
According to Kant, a transcendental schema is a mediating nexus, a third thing ("tertium quid"; "ein Drittes"), between a pure concept and a phenomenon. This mediation was never satisfactorily explained by Kant, and Charles Sanders Peirce declared that it is a major part of Kant's system. Kant's "doctrine of the schemata can only have been an afterthought…," Peirce wrote. The theory of mediating schemata was "an addition to his system after it was substantially complete." The enormous importance of the concept of the transcendental schema was emphasized by Peirce when he wrote that "if the schemata had been considered early enough, they would have overgrown his whole work."
Of interest is his engagement with Immanuel Kant, which was initiated by a review of Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" in the "Göttinger Gelehrten Anzeigen" ("Göttingen Learned Advertiser") which had been shortened by the Göttingen philosopher Johann Georg Heinrich Feder. Kant felt himself to have been misunderstood, and complained bitterly about the review in the Appendix to his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics that Will Henceforth Come Forward as a Science. When the original, longer review was published by Garve in the "Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek" ("General German Library"), it still attracted Kant's censure. Kant consequently wrote his own "Anti-Garve". This program in time expanded into Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals". The intellectual engagement between Kant and Garve extended up to Garve's death of cancer in 1798.
The First Piece originally appeared as a "Berlinische Monatsschrift" article (April 1792). Kant's attempt to publish the Second Piece in the same journal met with opposition from the king's censor. Kant then arranged to have all four pieces published as a book, routing it through the philosophy department at University of Jena to avoid the need for theological censorship. Kant was reprimanded for this action of insubordination. When he nevertheless published a second edition in 1794, the censor was so irate that he arranged for a royal order that required Kant never to publish or even speak publicly about religion.
Kant's important realization was that the possibility of metaphysics can be established. This can be done only by describing what occurs when the mind is conscious of objects. Kant's weakness was in being overly concerned with the objects themselves. He remained at the second, less basic, level of philosophy. He rarely examined what occurred in consciousness, which is the basic level of philosophy. Kant did not provide a phenomenological description of consciousness. Reinhold was convinced that Kant should have identified the fundamental fact of consciousness that was essential in making cognition itself possible.
Kant introduced the concept of the transcendental schema in his chapter entitled "Of the Schematism of the Pure Concepts of the Understanding." It is considered to be one of Kant's more difficult chapters. Even though he knew that he was not writing for a popular readership, Kant twice tried to apologize for this chapter by calling it "very dry" and "dry and tedious." Kant entered into his 1797 notebook: "In general, the schematism is one of the most difficult points. – Even Herr Beck cannot find his way about in it." Professor W.H. Walsh, of the University of Edinburgh, wrote: "The chapter on Schematism probably presents more difficulties to the uncommitted but sympathetic reader than any other part of the "Critique of Pure Reason". Not only are the details of the argument highly obscure (that, after all, is a common enough experience in reading Kant, though one is not often so baffled as one is here): it is hard to say in plain terms what general point or points Kant is seeking to establish." Arthur Schopenhauer referred to it as "…the strange 'Chapter on the Schematism of the Pure Concepts of the Understanding,' which is well known for its great obscurity, since no one has ever been able to make anything out of it." Schopenhauer's notebooks contained entries that described Kant's chapter on schemata as "an audacious piece of nonsense" and the schema as "an absurdity whose non–existence is plain." In Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's schemata, he attempted to clear up the obscurity by attributing Kant's concept of schemata simply to a psychological need for architectonic symmetry in his writings. Empirical concepts are based on empirical perceptions. Kant, however, tried to claim that, analogously, pure concepts (Categories) also have a basis. But this contradicts his previous assertion that pure concepts simply exist in the human mind and are not based on pure, schematic perceptions. Schopenhauer also alleged that schemata were introduced merely to give plausibility to Kant's description of the categories or pure concepts of the understanding. The article on Kant in the "Encyclopedia of Philosophy" calls Kant's schematism a "baffling doctrine " with "cryptic sentences." Josiah Royce referred to "the perplexing doctrine of the Schema." The Scottish philosopher Robert Adamson wrote: "Kant's manner of explaining the functions of schematism is extremely apt to be misunderstood, and to mislead." Kant's early critics (1782 –1789) did not discuss schematism because they couldn't follow Kant's explanation. Heidegger wrote of "the dryness and tediousness of this analysis…." After more than two centuries, Kant's explanation of schema still seems to be unclear to many readers. In their book on parallel distributed processing, the PDP Research Group discussed Kant's schemata when they appropriated that word to designate their concept of image schemata. "The schema," they wrote, "throughout history, has been a concept shrouded in mystery. Kant's … use of the term has been provocative but difficult to understand." After this sentence, no further attempt was made to discuss Kant's term and the concept that it designates. H. H. Price, in "Thinking and Experience", page 292, referred to Kant’s Schema and wrote, "…I must confess I do not fully understand it." In 2004, Professor Georges Dicker of SUNY Brockport stated: "I find the Schematism especially opaque…."
At Jena, he befriended Gottlob Frege and collaborated with the Neo-Kantian philosopher of language Richard Hönigswald. Bauch was an influential figure in the Kant-Gesellschaft (Kant Society) and helped publish the Prussian Academy's edition of Kant's collected works. Until 1916, he was editor of the Kant Society's journal, "Kant-Studien" (Kant Studies). He was forced to resign after publishing an anti-semitic article in a right-wing nationalist tabloid, which caused a storm of controversy in the Kant Society. (Many Neo-Kantians, including Bauch's subsequent colleague Hönigswald, were Jewish, and quite a few were social democrats.) In 1917, Bauch founded a philosophical society of his own, the German Philosophical Society, which issued the journal "Beiträge zur Philosophie des Deutschen Idealismus" (Contributions to the Philosophy of German Idealism). Frege was among its contributors. When the Nazis came to power, Bauch's political views stood him in good stead. While many Neo-Kantians had to emigrate and some ended up in concentration camps (including, for a year, Hönigswald), Bauch became head of the German Philosophical Society in 1934.
Shashi Kant Seth or S. K. Seth (born 28 August 1931) was an Indian Judge and Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Kant's identification with deism is controversial. An argument in favor of Kant as deist is Allen Wood's "Kant's Deism," in P. Rossi and M. Wreen (eds.), "Kant's Philosophy of Religion Reconsidered" (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991); an argument against Kant as deist is Stephen Palmquist's "Kant's Theistic Solution".
Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons. First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty ("deon"). Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives (expressed as maxims) of the person who carries out the action. Kant's argument that to act in the morally right way, one must act from duty, begins with an argument that the highest good must be both good in itself, and good without qualification. Something is 'good in itself' when it is intrinsically good, and 'good without qualification' when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse. Kant then argues that those things that are usually thought to be good, such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure, fail to be either intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears to not be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffer, they make the situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that is truly good:
Together with Degérando, who introduced Kant studies in France, he was one of Maine de Biran's main sources on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant whose work he followed in its development by one of Kant's pupils: Friedrich Bouterwek (1766-1828), professor in Philosophy at the Georg August University in Göttingen. "Meyers Lexicon" Mannheim 1990 links Bouterwek with Maine de Biran. Bouterwek was already lecturing on Kant at Göttingen when Stapfer studied there in 1789-1790.