There are many subtleties for the views of people who keep in close contact; how does Samuel Clarke vary from Newton, for instance.
After a lot of correspondences, communiques’ and conversations in the library corridor. I thought I’d delineate the various ways in which we, as the Areopagites, view Kant:
1. Destre – he won’t admit this, but he takes to view of a strictly historical reading of Kant; with a couple of provisos, the trajectory of Kant’s intellectual heritage, for Destre, is important for Christianity, European (continental) philosophy, and humanity as a whole. Destre, although not by admission, advocates a historical literal reading of Kant; and is keen to emphasise his political/historical/ethical import as the lasting heritage.
2. Sinistre (and maybe S* as well…) – takes to the view that a historical and proper understanding of the primary text is important, but strays away from advocating a Kantian view; further, Sinistre holds of the view that the Idealist strand may separate from the Transcendental strand in such a way where by the former or latter may stand as a more cogent doctine. Sinistre is steeped in the literature from the 20thC Anglo-Saxon scholarship
3. My own view: Probably somewhere between these two guys. I don’t think I understand the historical Kant, and clarification of the more cryptic passages are interesting. I however, think that we might look elsewhere for philosophy insofar as other areas and discussions have come about since Kant; consider the emergence of formal logic, or philosophy of language, for instance…
4. Antisophie has the general view that Kant is hurrendously wrong. We don’t really think she admits that is true, though. Like all things, its far more subtle than that…