I simply cannot think of a better-written very short essay. A pleasure to read - you owe your editor two cases of Guinness!

And I agree with you - with a residual question or two:

1) "[M]uch of Kant’s metaphysics has now been replaced by physics – his views on time, space, and causality have all been ousted."

Really? Am I mistaken in thinking his metaphysics are still in play, just that the physicists don't have much use for it? Most physicists, for example, believe in God, but know perfectly well there's no relevance there for their scientific work.

2) "His strong emphasis on a duty-based worldview and objective standards of morality seem to clash with today’s existential zeitgeist."

And long may it clash until it prevails or yields to a better understanding!

A professor said that philosophy before Kant was "naive." Further, that for now and the foreseeable future, any philosophical understanding (worthy of name) had to traverse his thought. Having made part of that traverse, I agree.

But there's no reason much of his thought cannot be made more accessible and taught even to reasonably intelligent middle-school students, just as a lot of other subject are. (Not to say that they're always well taught; clearly they're not!)

I don't think any philosopher shoud be studied. They are usually out of date or either mundane/crazy a few years on. Educaton likes "studying" the dead dudes though 'cos it generates examinable/markable stuff.

Most physicists, for example, believe in God — tim wood

I have vague memories of seeing a survey that reported exactly the opposite. Scientists reported significantly lower levels of belief in God than the general population and physicists reported significantly lower levels of belief in God than other scientists. The figure of about 20% is floating around there in my pseudo-memory.

Of course, really I'm just hoping somebody will Google up the survey and tell me whether my memory is accurate.

I don't want to derail. So I'll add a vote that I think Kant's ideas are still very useful to study. I find myself constantly coming back to his Transcendental Aesthetic, Transcendental Deduction of the Categories and Synthetic Unity of Apperception in my musing about Life, The Universe and Everything.

Kant—goodness yes. Someone today whose corporeal manifestation would be that of a paunchy, balding man, eternally sixty years old, often seen in his yard, cleaning out his gutters or basement wells or tending his garden joylessly. I feel that he'd be wearing an awkward straw hat of sorts, too-tight khaki shorts that reveal the topography of his crumpled underpants as he stoops to slake the thirst of his prize-winning orchids. Oh and stockings, most certainly. He would have those long ones, the ones you have to strap up onto your calves with elastic bands to keep in place. But look at the bright side, he didn't flirt with the ladies in such a manner that would lead to horizontal exercise—no arthritis.

What was it you wanted to know again...ah yes! Is he worth studying in this deplorable day and age. I give a resounding "yes" to that. His categorical imperative alone is a reason people owe attention to such a figure. What I find horrid is that his contemporaries didn't appreciate his work, thought it had no value. Granted, it can be hard to understand Kant, especially if you read a translation instead of the original German, but there are always more confusing philosophers out there. Just look at Hegel.

Most physicists, for example, believe in God
— tim wood

I have vague memories of seeing a survey that reported exactly the opposite. Scientists reported significantly lower levels of belief in God than the general population and physicists reported significantly lower levels of belief in God than other scientists. The figure of about 20% is floating around there in my pseudo-memory. — andrewk

I'd be surprised if any real scientist fully believed in a garden-variety supernatural god such as most believers believe in. But that's just the window dressing. Those same real scientists for the most part believe in something (as in, something rather then nothing) that stands as answer to the otherwise unanswerable questions, the questions that science doesn't pretend to try to answer.

And as well, monotheism underpins modern science, in the sense that were there multiple gods, there would be no reason for laws of nature to be consistent across their respective "jurisdictions." The assumption of one god warrants a belief in one set of laws that works everywhere, which seems to how it is.

In any case discussions referencing god are best prefaced with an agreed set of definitions and understandings if the discussion is to get anywhere

Yesterday I was having an argument with a classmate regarding the importance of Kant today. He argued that Kant was no longer relevant - most of his metaphysics has been displaced by science and his theory of morality is not in line with what morality means any more. I utterly disagreed with what he said, and decided to collect my thoughts into an article. I'd love to hear if anyone else thinks Kant is obsolete, and if so why?

My article can be found here: http://thephilosphere.com/why-study-kant-today — James McSharry

There are so many reasons to study Kant, not the least of which is of his historical importance.

In terms of contemporary philosophy, to me, most of the best philosophy has *some* kind of Kantian aspect to it.

I've mostly considered myself, insofar as I considered myself anything in philosophy, a Heideggarian-styled phenomenologico-existentialist. Without Kant, I think Heidegger's thought would be pretty incoherent and meaningless, specifically the notion of the transcendental conditions / a priori understanding of understanding and knowledge and reality.

Heidegger describes his phenomenological method as transcendental in nature. I think he's right that it is - Heidegger discussed the necessary conditions of what it is for a thing to be anything at all and the kind of being that it has. Without Kant, this project doesn't even get off the ground. And I think the Heiddegerian school is still very relevant philosophically today, with seemingly more and more anglo-american philosophers taking on Heidegger in either a positive or negative way.

Not to mention that even where I think Kant is wrong, his ideas are momentous. The a priori nature of space and time as conditions of experience. Appearance vs. thing-in-itself. The moral law. These are all very live and interesting philosophical debates being had or to be had I believe.

So yay for Kant. I disagree with him a lot, but he's highly relevant and worth studying closely IMO.