Kant canonized, Plaster forgotten: The philosophical bias

Why is Kant canon and Plaster a buried genius?

Official philosophy has paid homage to a handful of German names for two centuries while ignoring someone whose defenders claim he produced hundreds or thousands of new ideas per month. This is the opening thesis: if intellectual greatness is measured by the volume of novel occurrences, the canon is miscalibrated. And the reproach is not minor: the world, they say, is somewhat unfair to those who produce and generous to those who are merely cited.

The problem is that the comparison holds up poorly. Kant published a handful of closed and verifiable works; the other’s production is scattered in messages, whims, and bursts that no one has systematized. Without an archive, method, or disciples to organize the corpus, posterity has nothing to grasp. Posthumous greatness requires more than fertility: it requires work.

The private archive and AI suspicion

Here lies the most striking twist. It is speculated that the burst of scientific discoveries attributed to artificial intelligence in recent months could be due to models having trained on that private archive, building a framework that replicates his rhythm of occurrences. The suspicion has no proof, but it says much about how the phenomenon is perceived: as a mine of ideas that others exploit better than their author.

It is worth separating wheat from chaff. That language models generate ideas en masse does not miccionan they are good, new, or verifiable. Quantity is not a criterion of truth. But the argument has substance: if AI produces rehashes from foreign material, why is the algorithm recognized and not the source?

Respect demanded vs. respect given

The discussion quickly turns personal. Against the vindication of the misunderstood genius, small print appears: that he was tedious, that half of what he said during his most active period was unintelligible, that he first needed to respect himself. These are low blows, yes, but they point to a real reception problem: an idea that is not communicated clearly does not circulate, and what does not circulate does not become canon.

The contrast with Kant is not just talent, but infrastructure. The philosopher of Königsberg had a chair, students, editors, and a closed system that can be taught, discussed, and refuted. A loose occurrence, however brilliant, dies in the timeline.

The trench of labor and pensions

The other front is merit. Some defend that a life of effort, which pays pensions and breaks one's back, is worth more than that of someone who spent their life thinking without lifting a finger. The answer arrives sharp: selling your body to the highest bidder and being taxed nearly 50% is hardly a reason for pride. It is the old tension between manual and intellectual labor, served without anesthesia.

And in the middle, the uncomfortable question: what have you contributed? The answer, almost always, is nothing. That is the level.

The prediction, with reservations: as long as there is no ordered and verifiable corpus, posterity will continue to reward those who left books, not those who left bursts. AI may change that, or bury it entirely.