Perhaps one element of good philosophy should be that the argument be at least moderately straightforward. Maybe Kant is just deep, but I perceive a lot of leaps to conclusions based on a huge amount of new, creative concepts as the springboard. I have not studied enough of this to be definite, but my suspicion is that Kant is considered a great philosopher by a brand of intellectuals that can use such indeterminate fluff to justify their views about how philosophy leads to current sociological and political trends. For example: "Skill can hardly be developed in the human race otherwise than by means of inequality among men." I rate this a 4 only because it holds such an esteemed spot in the development of modern philosophy, but it's not the type of argument that convinces me. ( )