ABSTRACT
Immanuel Kant is rather scathing of a certain kind of history of philosophy. Alert to the possibility that interpretive charity and interpretive fidelity may sometimes pull in different directions, he favorably contrasts the stance of intelligent and charitable engagement with the stance of an uncritical devotee. If Kant is right to value the former, then the history of philosophy since his time has been fortunate, since there has been no lack of intelligent and charitable engagement. His purpose must be to say something else, something mild, and sane, and wise. Kant gives some license, as we can see, for this kind of rational reconstruction: he gives license for seeing beyond what the philosopher actually said, to what he really meant to say. His distinction between phenomena and things in themselves is a distinction between two ways we have of considering things, and from that distinction no metaphysical theses.
