amazingly

"The result is that the text of the First Edition [and also of the Second Edition] is replete with internal contradictions and incompatibilities. One must simply be aware of this fact in reading the text and make allowances for it."

The above sentence is taken from Professor Robert Paul Wolff's blog, his commentary on Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", a great book.

I apologize to Professor Wolff for being so lazy, but I'm not actually reading his tutorial/discussion of Kant. I've got other fish to fry.

But the quoted bit is very interesting.

I might use that as something of a motto: There are contradictions in this blog, but

the reader must make allowances....

Well, I do ask for charity. But, there's a specific reason for the inconsistency in Kant's work which doesn't apply to anything I'm saying here....

Just thinking about the remark above, it sounds as though Kant scholars must have a fantastic degree of patience and must sometimes be on the verge of insanity while attempting to discern what their hero really wanted to say....

(And is there nothing puzzling in Plato? Oh, surely, especially when you start moving across the dialogues, but contradictions within one dialogue? Well, there may well be, but right now I don't know....) But Professor Wolff says the First Critique is "replete" with contradictions--not just one or two.....