I am taking it from this post and other things you have said, Mr. Damocles, that you have, in fact, read the speech. I haven't read the speech, I still haven't read the speech, I have skimmed the speech and I can now say with certitude and accuracy that the pope does not quote Kant in the speech, he refers to Kant 2 times in the speech (both times to refute him it appears) the first time is here, "When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this program forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole." As you can see there is no quotation of Kant's here whatsoever, only a reference to Kant.
The second time he refers to Kant in his text he says this: "Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant’s "Critiques", but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences." Again we have the quotation of the conflation of the titles of the 3 Critiques of Reason, Practical Reason, and Judgment. The popes use of quotation marks here is an indication of style not a quotation, he could as easily have italisized the titles as I have done. Let's be clear, I have not read the piece even though I have quoted from it I have still not read it. But ever without reading it I now know that the Pope did not quote Kant, yet others here who claim to have read it still think he does quote Kant. For instance you write "regardless of his quoting Kant in it. It will make your mind buzz. Instead of spending hours going on about a speech you have admitted to never reading all because you have heard he quoted Kant. There was actually a bit more to the speech than quoting Kant...Who knows, you might even like the Kant quote." Evidently given what you say here you still think that he quoted Kant because not only do you refer to it three times, but you didn't fault me for being completely wrong about his quoting Kant. Yet he doesn't quote Kant. He refers to Kant as I have noted but he doesn't quote Kant. So...
Now let's proceed to a more alarming set of pronouncements. I know you think you know what I said and what I meant in my statements about the Pope and Kant. But you are just plain wrong, Damo. When I say I am not impressed by someone quoting Kant, even when they don't, I mean just that. There is a big difference between being unimpressed with someone quoting Kant and not likeing Kant. Do you understand that, can you get that through your head. I just went into my library and counted my books by Kant, I own ten books by Kant including two copies of The Critique of Judgment and 2 copies by different translators and publishers of the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, in addition I have no less than twelve books by different authors of criticism of Kant's major works. That doesn't impress me, does it impress you? Does this level of ownership seem indicative of someone who doesn't like Kant? Do you think anyone else here will believe after reading this that I don't like Kant. How many authors do you own ten books by? Are they authors that you "don't like"??? Most people would say I must love Kant.
I thought that Kant had been quoted by the Pope because I heard a bozo on television who couldn't read or evidently know what he read say that the piece was highly intellectualized and that the pope even quoted Kant. No one here said he quoted Kant, do I always have to restrict myself to what others have said about someone or something or can I discuss and add anything I want or do I have to clear all my additions with you before I post them. I admitted up front that I had not read but only heard about the Popes speech. Yet you wish to trash me for speaking of something that I haven't read in full. Others here talked about it too and I know they haven't read it either. How many people who are talking about Chevez's speech at the U.N. have read the whole speech???? or any of Chomsky's works???? In fact how many people who reply to the articles I quote here actually go back and read the whole article before responding???
Before you start insisting that You know what I mean and when I am backpedaling, you should first learn how to read, then learn to look up words in the dictionary when you don't know what they mean. For instance "unimpressed" doesn't mean "does not like," it means "not impressed"! Impressed means "cause to have a lasting effect or to make an impression on...the mind" for instance. My comment was about the Pope, not about Kant. I would not be impressed, for instance, if Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter quoted Kant either. It is entirely possible to not be impressed by the Pope's or other's use of Kant and still have a respect and admiration for Kant himself and his philosophical struggles. Perhaps this respect and admiration is the reason I have so many books by him and about him and his writings. Besides that he is a very difficult read, and stretches my meager ability to understand complex texts. I sometimes refer to reading Kant as weightlifting for the brain.
You have talked a lot about my assumptions and how I make them, maybe you better take a quick check in the mirror.
Gotta go!!!!
Have a Nice Day!!!
Last edited:
Maybe Brent was raised this way and it is not his fault that he comes off the way he does sometimes?