Can you summarize your objection to Kant? I see below that you clearly dislike him, but what particularly about Kant do you find so objectionable? Do you find his moral philosophy or his phenomenology more irritating? Do you think any aspects of his philosophy are useful?

In order: 1) OK. This will be very compressed. 2) Kant was wrong about pretty much everything that he wasn't not-even-wrong about, but he's worse than that. Hume was right in a way that didn't leave much room for elaboration, but Kant--Kant was wrong in a way that could be argued about and built upon forever. Here's an experiment: go someplace people argue about philosophy--message boards, whatever--and look for the people arguing about what Kant *actually meant*. Decide for yourself if anyone ever actually succeeds. Philosophy after Kant is, to a great extent, post-Kantian, and that's damning of philosophy. Kant's work is a tool for the generation of limitless, unresolvable arguments, and that's why he's so popular. 3) His moral philosophy is wrong. His phenomenology is not-even-wrong. What the fuck is a ding-an-sich? After more than 200 years, nobody's any closer to agreement. 4) They're useful if you want tenure in a philosophy department. I'm probably being wrong and unfair here, but also fuck Kant.