Kant Quotes

“Kant thought things, not because they were true, but because he was Kant.”
― W. Somerset Maugham, Of Human Bondage

“With Kant, we could say that telltales act in accordance with the categorical imperative, fulfilling a moral duty. They choose to expose the truth for the sake of a higher ethical principle, even if it comes at great personal cost. ("Alert. High noon.")”
― Erik Pevernagie

“What Pascal overlooked was the hair-raising possibility that God might out-Luther Luther. A special area in hell might be reserved for those who go to mass. Or God might punish those whose faith is prompted by prudence. Perhaps God prefers the abstinent to those who whore around with some denomination he despises. Perhaps he reserves special rewards for those who deny themselves the comfort of belief. Perhaps the intellectual ascetic will win all while those who compromised their intellectual integrity lose everything.

There are many other possibilities. There might be many gods, including one who favors people like Pascal; but the other gods might overpower or outvote him, à la Homer. Nietzsche might well have applied to Pascal his cutting remark about Kant: when he wagered on God, the great mathematician 'became an idiot.”
― Walter Kaufmann, Critique of Religion and Philosophy

“Modern man, brought up on Kantian idealism, regards nature as being no more than an outcome of the laws of the mind. Losing all their independence as divine works, things gravitate henceforth round human thought, whence their laws are derived. What wonder, after that, is if criticism had resulted in the virtual disappearance of all metaphysics? [...] As soon as the universe is reduced to the laws of mind, man, now become creator, has no longer any means of rising above himself. Legislator of a world to which his own mind has given birth, he is henceforth the prisoner of his own work, and he will never escape from it anymore. [...] if my thought is the condition of being, never by thought shall I be able to transcend the limits of my being and my capacity for the infinite will never be satisfied.”
― Étienne Gilson

“The whole interest of my reason, whether speculative or practical, is concentrated in the three following questions: What can I know? What should I do? What may I hope? (Critique of Pure Reason”
― Immanuel Kant

“...When he puts a thing on a pedestal and calls it beautiful, he demands the same delight from others. He judges not merely for himself, but for all men, and then speaks of beauty as if it were the property of things.”
― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment

“To question reason is to trust it.”
― Mitch Stokes

“There is danger in speaking so generally about "liberalism," a danger that has often plagued feminist debates. "Liberalism" is not a single position but a family of positions; Kantian liberalism is profoundly different from classical Utilitarian liberalism, and both of these from the Utilitarianism currently dominant in neoclassical economics.”
― Martha C. Nussbaum

“The beautiful in nature is a question of the form of the object, and it consists in limitation, whereas the sublime is to be found in an object even devoid of form, so far as it immediately involves, or else by its presence evokes, a representation of limitlessness, yet with a super-added thought of its totality. Accordingly the beautiful seems to be regarded as a presentation of an indeterminate concept of the understanding , the sublime as a presentation of an indeterminate concept of reason, Hence, the delight is in the former case coupled with the representation of quality, but in this case with that of quantity. Moreover, the former delight is very different from the latter in kind. For the beautiful is directly attended with a feeling of the furtherance of life, and thus is compatible with charms and a playful imagination. On the other hand, the feeling of the sublime is a pleasure that only arrises indirectly, being brought about by the feeling of a momentary check of the vital forces followed all at once by discharge all the more powerful, and so it is an emotion that seems to be no play, but a serious matter of the imagination. Hence charms are also incompatible with it; and, since the mind is not simply attracted by the object, but is also alternately repelled thereby, the delight in the sublime does not show how much involve positive pleasure as admiration or respect, i.e. merits the name of a negative pleasure.”
― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment

“Kant noted that we typically apply labels or concepts to the world to classify sensory inputs that suit a purpose. ... Beautiful objects do not serve ordinary human purposes, as plates and spoons do. A beautiful rose pleases us, but not because we necessarily want to eat it or even pick it for a flower arrangement. Kant’s way of recognizing this was to say that something beautiful has purposiveness without a purpose’.”
― Cynthia Freeland, Art Theory: A Very Short Introduction

“Hume emphasized education and experience: men of taste acquire certain abilities that lead to agreement about which authors and artworks are the best. Such people, he felt, eventually will reach consensus, and in doing so, they set a ‘standard of taste’ which is universal. … Hume said men of taste must ‘preserve minds free from prejudice’, but thought no one should enjoy immoral attitudes or ‘vicious manners’ in art … Kant too spoke about judgements of taste but he was more concerned with explaining judgements of Beauty.
He aimed to show that good judgements in aesthetics are grounded in features of artworks themselves, not just in us and our preferences. Kant tried to describe our human abilities to perceive and categorize the world around us. There is a complex interplay among our mental faculties including perception, imagination, and intellect or judgement. Kant held that in order to function in the world to achieve our human purposes, we label much of what we sense, often in fairly unconscious ways.”
― Cynthia A. Freeland, Art Theory: A Very Short Introduction by Cynthia Freeland, Oxford University Press

“How do you explain the law and order in nature?" we ask the philosophers. All except Kant reply by assuming law and order somewhere, and then showing how we can recognise it.

In explaining our notions, philosophers from other than the Kantian standpoint, assume the notions as existing outside us, and then it is no difficult task to show how they come to us, either by inspiration or by observation.

We ask "Why do we have an idea of law in nature?" "Because natural processes go according to law", we are answered, "and experience inherited or acquired, gives us this notion". But when we speak about the law in nature we are speaking about a notion of our own. So all that these expositors do is to explain our notion by an assumption of it.”
― Charles Howard Hinton, The Fourth Dimension

“According to Plato, the Ultimate Primary Quality (Noumenon, or the thing in itself, the Being, or God) is accessible by pure thought or intuition. Since it is not in the “material” mode of secondary quality (formerly primary), according to Kant, it cannot be accessed and experienced by the senses.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“Kant’s idea about experience implies that it is the only measure of appearances or “reality” as presented to us and not as it necessarily is. Reality, as we experience it, is an illusion. The world we experience is the world of appearances or the sensible world, and the world beyond our reach, beyond the possibility of experience, is the intelligible world.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“Kant insists on experience in terms of cognition and understanding, which further implies that pure thought accessing the noumenal world is, in a way, impossible since there is no experience to check it. We state not only that the whole world is an “illusion” but that the Noumenon, as the ultimate source, is the creator of the phenomenal world operating as a program of the Noumenal domain of the same world.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“The phenomenal world is only a different domain of the noumenal world. It is the “intention” of the noumenal to become, on some level, phenomenal. Although from the perspective of the phenomenal, noumenal seems to be metaphysical and transcendent, from the perspective of the noumenal, phenomenal is immanent. Regardless of not having direct immaterial access to the noumenal, through our experience of the phenomenal, we experience the noumenal at the same time.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“When we use the word illusion, we mean something is not real in a broader sense. Yet, how do we define reality and illusion? Does reality depend on our senses, understanding, and definitions or on what it is objectively? Why would our senses, “definitions,” and “understanding,” or lack of it, not be reality irrespective of our idea of reality? What constitutes reality? Who decides what reality is? Would it not be logical that whatever exists is real? Even if something does not exist, we can imagine the reality of nonexistence. If everything that exists is real, we can only talk about the degrees or levels of reality without denying reality to something we do not understand. Our lack of understanding shall not be an obstacle to reality but a motivator to try harder and get closer to the most “real” of what is possible.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“Indeed, we do not experience noumena directly. Still, since the phenomena are the program of the noumenon or the transformed noumenon itself, we may be able to think and understand (to some extent) the thing in itself, Noumenon or the Being (Universal Mind). Although transcendent, Noumenon is immanent at the same time. Phenomena are the emanations of the Noumenon.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“Noumenon, or the “thing” in itself, is the reality without reality.
Ultimate reality is the annihilation of reality.
A Sourceless Source is sterile without creating.
Ultimate Source is the beginning and end at the same time.
Without creating or transforming, the Ultimate Source is the
dead world.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“Our senses, cognition, and understanding are the result of conditioning. We are not the creators of our senses or our cognition and understanding in the deepest and fullest sense. Without our conditioning, there would be nothing. Senses, cognition, and understanding among human beings may differ only in degree, based on education or intellectual capacity, but not in mystical or mysterious ways.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“We can follow Plato and Kant and agree that the world of phenomena is an illusion and that noumenon is reality. Still, we must add that reality is lost or undermined without this illusion. In this way of reasoning, we conclude that although reality is the creator of an illusion in the form of an “artificial” reality or the world, this “illusion” is also the creator of the reality of the Being itself or the thing in itself. Both reality and illusion are equally important. Without the one, the other loses its meaning and purpose.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“We may ask the question: What is reality? What is the real or objective reality? Finally, we may be surprised by the ultimate answer of reality: that the thing or reality is the illusion itself because the Ultimate Source, the Ultimate Reality, at its supreme point, is equal to Nothingness. That would mean that the Ultimate Reality is Nothingness. The Ultimate Source is the Ultimate Potential. Whether the actualization of this potential is reality or illusion is irrelevant. What is important is the existence and realization of the potential.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“In actuality, reality is an illusion. If it were not an illusion, to some degree, it would be the “God” itself, the realization, Oneneness without the beginning or end. That would end everything because everything would transform into its primordial state of Nothingness. Ultimate reality, or Nothingness, is therefore without purpose. The purpose is created by altering the Ultimate Reality (noumenon) into the world of plurality, so the plurality itself is an “illusion” that secures purpose. Without this illusion, there is no reality in an absolute sense. The road to reality is an illusion. Thanks to this illusion, there is existence in a broader sense. Limitations are the source of movement. Without separations and limits, there would be no movement but only frozen Oneness.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“If the will materializes as an idea, this distinction becomes less distinct. Almost the same scenarios, as in metaphysics, can be applied here within the realm of the physical world. What serves the role of the noumenon in Plato’s sense (even Kantian) is replaced here not by a metaphysical (transcendental) idea but by an always-present “idea,” carried by will and manifested through the world (matter).”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“Despite his originality, it would be hard to imagine Schopenhauer’s will without the Kantian will. Schopenhauer “converted Kant’s moral will” (moral regulator or reason) into a metaphysical will on a universal level.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“It is possible to convert Kant’s reason to an idea on a universal level to clarify the will’s effect on reason and its importance and meaning.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“All suffering is the price of life. All suffering must be in balance with all beauty. The pessimistic view is more an expression of the individual state of mind (outlook) than the external state of affairs (“objective reality”). According to Kant, the will is the universal legislator. Similarly, we can equate pure reason to the Supreme Being (essence) and practical reason to a plurality or multiplicity (the world, existence).”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“Kant thought that freedom of the will is only an idea and that, although it can function as a possible categorical imperative, it is still only a hypothesis. For Kant, it is impossible to explain how pure reason can be practical in itself, and, according to him, this is “beyond the power of human reason.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“For Schopenhauer, there is only one underlying reality; for Kant, there are things in themselves as a plurality. The difference is singularity against plurality (diversity). But this difference may be only on the surface, for it is hard to imagine that Kant thought of noumenon (if equated to a thing in itself) as of plurality, but rather that things in themselves are not differentiated in the noumenon as they are in the world of phenomena for these phenomena are only particular, phenomenal manifestations of the One—Noumenon (although this may not be the case with Plato). Let’s think deeper about Plato’s idea of noumenon. We may conclude that, although on a superficial level, noumenon may contain plurality, when we look deeper, we may conclude that Plato’s noumenon is singularity too. Regardless of the description and explanation in the Republic, Plato’s noumenon is or may be the undifferentiated One. The idea that the world we see and the things in it are only the shadows of an underlying reality or noumena does not necessarily mean that all these things have their literal equivalents in the noumenon. In the end, there seems to be less difference between Plato’s forms (ideas) and Kant’s things in themselves than it looks like on the surface. Still, noumenon, although being a singularity, being the One and universal underlying reality, contains plurality as a potential.”
― Dejan Stojanovic, ABSOLUTE

“Every man is his own priest” is a conviction to which men could win through, but only as that pet of the priesthood which involves duties, not as to that which possesses power. No man confessed himself with the inward certainty of absolution.”
― Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol 2: Perspectives of World History