Talk:Critique of Practical Reason

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Umm....yes indeed. That's what I thought.

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)

[edit] Boring!!!

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

[edit] Editions???

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.