Frank Kogan

kant is the only philosopher i specifically studied at college -- the rest of what i did was either frantic catch-up (i switched courses after a year and had to speedread descartes, locke, berkeley and hume on my own time), or bitty reading centred round specific questions

i: kant is a monumentally crappy writer stylistically -- and also (i think) more or less impossible to just dip into; you have to read critique from the start to see where he's coming from and going to (there's an over-reaching logical structure which gradually embeds more and more quite large claims -- which have earlier been explored and perhaps proved -- into a very subtle and elaborate argument)

ii: so his argument about what needs to be permanent, and "outside" the mind -- though actually i think inside vs outside is a bit of a misleading way to think of what he's getting at -- is something he has spent a lot of earlier time demonstrating in CoPR; i'll rack my brains over the weekend to re-animate what i recall and try and make the point clearer