Talk:Critique of Practical Reason
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Critique of Practical Reason article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Umm....yes indeed. That's what I thought. edit
I think that these "collaborations" should stick to one artilce at most. Maybe one section, now that I think of it...--Lacatosias 13:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Boring!!! edit
It is an excruciatingly BORING book, but someone has to do it. The postulates of reason... oh shit, Immanuel brother. Can't find a solution, it's all in the noumenal baby!!--Lacatosias 16:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Geeesh!! Kant is the Lord!! He should be worhipped as a god insetad of Jesus Christ (who may not even have actually existed). I have to strike out a number of truly nonsensical, off-the cuff comments that I made on some of these talk pages.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- What dull minds find boring, sharp minds interesting. Robert Brown looked into a boring drop of water and observed interesting Brownian motion.Lestrade 23:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
Editions??? edit
In the dover Philosophical Classics edition, which I now have in my hand, the section consist of a preface, 3 chapters in the analytic, 2 in the dialectic and then the methodology of pure practical reason and the conclusion. The 3rd chapter of the analytic is entitled "of the motives of pure practical reason". It is unclear whether this is a differenc in editions, but its ommission from the page is alarming. Can someone clarify? it seems that some of the points from the chapter have been encompassed into chapter 2 of the analytic.
Incredibly Inaccurate edit
This article is flat out inaccurate on fundemental matters. In Kant's view - as expressed in this work - Freedom is revealed by the moral law, not God, for one thing. Who wrote this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.91.153 (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The article is copied from Spark Notes. edit
Almost the entire article is copied from SparkNotes, a website that specializes in book summaries. On it every major work of fiction, science or philosophy is summarized in a simple and comprehensible manner, for students to understand it and use it for their classes.
In short, someone copied the article from SparkNotes. ---Max(talk) 13:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Who wrote the original summary of the text? edit
The Preface and Introduction section states, "He suggests that many of the defects that reviewers have found in his arguments are in fact only in their brains, which are too lazy to grasp his ethical system as a whole". This makes Kant sound a bit too arrogant!
While he does comment about grasping the parts and the whole of his critical system, I don't think he usually makes any comments that are as arrogant and snobby in the actual text.
The rest of the article's original summary of the 2nd critique is okay. However, I would like to later add more content and accuracy to the summary (with proper citations). The main issue is that I don't know who wrote that original summary. I'd at least like to ask for valid permission from somebody to edit more than I already have of the text summary to make sure I don't make unwanted changes to the summary author's current work.
This is an often overlooked text and I think it would be very beneficial for Kant students to have a more detailed summary of the 2nd Critique.
MaxMontague4725 (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)