3 ms·

Ah, yes. I recall the first time I encountered this in the form of a trigger warning placed by Wilder Publications in Kant's Critiques (which collected Kant's P

Ah, yes. I recall the first time I encountered this in the form of a trigger warning placed by Wilder Publications in Kant's Critiques (which collected Kant's Pure Reason, Practical Reason, and Judgment). It advised parents to talk with their kids about the way we believe differently today than Kant did two centuries ago before allowing them to read the old German philosopher. I've since seen and heard about so many more instances of this, that I wonder how on earth any allegedly adult college student can make it through a philosophy course anymore. Or history, psychology, sociology, literature, etc. I can't think of many significant figures in the whole of human history who didn't hold some kind of position that was a byproduct of their time that could be judged objectionable in some way by today's standards--and that now seems to be used as all the reason needed to completely disregard engaging with someone who is recognized as having had a transformative impact on history and thought. It's all very disheartening.

Erik816 8y ago
If you're old enough to be reading Kant, you're old enough to no longer need a parental warning.
- bobwaycott 8y ago
  That was roughly my thought exactly when I encountered the warning. At first it was humorous. Then it was sad.
tryitnow 8y ago
What exactly is wrong with encouraging parents to talk to their kids about historical context? Isn't that something we should encourage? I am utterly bewildered by the contradiction in your response. On the one hand you cite a warning that explicitly tells parents to talk to their kids about the text and in the next paragraph you claim that such warnings tell people to "completely disregard" engagement. These are logically inconsistent claims. Please explain.
- bobwaycott 8y ago
  First, kids don't read Kant. The volume in question was an assigned text in a college philosophy course. Second, I didn't suggest the Wilder warning mentioned in the first paragraph suggested anyone should disregard engagement. My second paragraph is talking about other instances of what I first encountered (in the first paragraph), and the act of holding up a historical figure's dated views as "all the reason needed to completely disregard engaging with someone who is recognized as having had a transformative impact on history and thought". There are no logically inconsistent claims being made here. Two separate paragraphs, two separate but related things being discussed. The first is not laying a logical foundation for an argument in the second.
olavk 8y ago
> It advised parents to talk with their kids about... Was the implication that parent would read Kant for their kids? Or what is going on here? Edit: A bit of googling shows that apparently this publisher only publishes texts old enough to be public domain and just include this warning as a standard boilerplate regardless of the content. So this have probably nothing to do with Kant or any book in particular.
- jandrese 8y ago
  Thanks for doing the legwork on this. It's still a dumb warning, but at least it's being applied in the dumbest way possible.

Erik816 8y ago

If you're old enough to be reading Kant, you're old enough to no longer need a parental warning.

bobwaycott 8y ago
That was roughly my thought exactly when I encountered the warning. At first it was humorous. Then it was sad.

tryitnow 8y ago

What exactly is wrong with encouraging parents to talk to their kids about historical context? Isn't that something we should encourage? I am utterly bewildered by the contradiction in your response. On the one hand you cite a warning that explicitly tells parents to talk to their kids about the text and in the next paragraph you claim that such warnings tell people to "completely disregard" engagement. These are logically inconsistent claims. Please explain.

bobwaycott 8y ago
First, kids don't read Kant. The volume in question was an assigned text in a college philosophy course. Second, I didn't suggest the Wilder warning mentioned in the first paragraph suggested anyone should disregard engagement. My second paragraph is talking about other instances of what I first encountered (in the first paragraph), and the act of holding up a historical figure's dated views as "all the reason needed to completely disregard engaging with someone who is recognized as having had a transformative impact on history and thought". There are no logically inconsistent claims being made here. Two separate paragraphs, two separate but related things being discussed. The first is not laying a logical foundation for an argument in the second.

olavk 8y ago

> It advised parents to talk with their kids about... Was the implication that parent would read Kant for their kids? Or what is going on here? Edit: A bit of googling shows that apparently this publisher only publishes texts old enough to be public domain and just include this warning as a standard boilerplate regardless of the content. So this have probably nothing to do with Kant or any book in particular.

jandrese 8y ago
Thanks for doing the legwork on this. It's still a dumb warning, but at least it's being applied in the dumbest way possible.