Re: Perhaps this will prompt Navillus to actually crack open Dembski'sworks


John Wilkins wrote:
> Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> > Robert J. Kolker schreef:
> >
> >
> >>brogers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>brogers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Kant wrote enviously of Hume's prose style. He had much to envy.
> >>>>
> >>>>Indeed. Kant's -Critique of Pure Reason- is unintelligible in German and
> >>>>in any translation. However -The Prologomena- is quite readible. So Kant
> >>>>did have his lucid moments.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The Prologomena is "quite readable" in the same sense that it is
> >>>"trivial" that Zorn's lemma is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice.
> >>>
> >>>Give me Hume any day. Even Wittgenstein; at least he is funny even when
> >>>you can't quite figure out what he's up to.
> >>
> >>No doubt about it. Hume is more readable than Kant.
> >
> >
> > Especially for the english speaking world. However, that's hardly a
> > philosophical argument against Kant.
> >
> Hume is more readable in English than most English language philosophers. Kant
> is more obscure in German than most [analytic] English speaking philosophers
> are in English. Kant is more readable than a lot of later German language
> philosophers (e.g., Husserl, Nietzsche). In English translation, Kant repays
> close study though, although I don't hold him in the esteem that many seem to.

Given the fact that i'm not a student of philosophy, I do not think
myself qualified to discuss either Kants or Humes work. I have a
(german) copy of "Kritik der reinen Vernunft", but never got past the
opening chapter. I did read Störig's "History of Philosophy", though,
and he seems to think Kant is pretty enlightening, though he is
critical.

I'd be glad to hear your vision, though.


.

Relevant Pages