{"id":68,"date":"2016-07-21T10:00:41","date_gmt":"2016-07-21T10:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.matthiasbrinkmann.de\/wordpress\/?p=68"},"modified":"2017-10-15T19:05:12","modified_gmt":"2017-10-15T19:05:12","slug":"what-is-the-longest-sentence-in-kant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.matthiasbrinkmann.de\/wordpress\/2016\/07\/what-is-the-longest-sentence-in-kant\/","title":{"rendered":"What is the longest sentence in Kant?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I\u2019m an avid Kant reader. But however much you love Kant, one has to admit that he isn\u2019t always the best stylist. In particular, one thing even the casual reader notices is Kant\u2019s tendency to produce very long sentences\u2014what Germans amicably call <em>Bandwurms\u00e4tze<\/em>. So a question I asked myself is what the longest sentence in Kant\u2019s published work might be. I\u2019m not the first to ask this rather important question. Stephen Hicks has made a brief <a href=\"http:\/\/www.stephenhicks.org\/2013\/09\/30\/philosophys-longest-sentences-new-kant-entry\/\">list of philosophers with long sentences<\/a>, where Kant comes in at a disappointing third with a 174-word sentence, behind Aristotle and Locke. But surely, I thought, this does injustice to Kant. He must have a sentence longer than a measly 174 words. So the search for the longest sentence in Kant\u2019s work began.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>Fortunately, we have the majority of Kant\u2019s works in German available online at <a href=\"https:\/\/korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de\/Leitseite\/\">korpora.org<\/a>. This magnificent project has the first 23 volumes of Kant\u2019s <em>Academy Edition<\/em>\u2014though I should say that the website could use some cosmetic and technical updates. It\u2019s not too hard to run a quick and dirty script on the contents of the database, crawling to find the longest sentence. And findings are indeed encouraging. An initial run of the script finds 34 sentences longer than 200 words in the first nine volumes of the Academy edition\u2014that is, Kant\u2019s published works.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"sidenote\">(The script is limited in some ways. Most importantly, it takes any occurrence of a period to end a sentence, but that might overlook phrases like \u201cd.i.\u201d or \u201cz.B.\u201d\u2014though I tried to remedy some of these. Still, some long sentences might have been overlooked.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Without further ado, the by far longest sentence I could find is a 438-word comment on the history of religion in Kant\u2019s <em>Religion inside the Boundaries of Mere Reason<\/em>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Wie mystische Schw\u00e4rmereien im Eremiten- und M\u00f6nchsleben und Hochpreisung der Heiligkeit des ehelosen Standes eine gro\u00dfe Menschenzahl f\u00fcr die Welt unn\u00fctz machten; wie damit zusammenh\u00e4ngende vorgebliche Wunder das Volk unter einem blinden Aberglauben mit schweren Fesseln dr\u00fcckten; wie mit einer sich freien Menschen aufdringenden Hierarchie sich die schreckliche Stimme der Rechtgl\u00e4ubigkeit aus dem Munde anma\u00dfender, alleinig berufener Schriftausleger erhob und die christliche Welt wegen Glaubensmeinungen (in die, wenn man nicht die reine Vernunft zum Ausleger ausruft, schlechterdings keine allgemeine Einstimmung zu bringen ist) in erbitterte Parteien trennte; wie im Orient, wo der Staat sich auf eine l\u00e4cherliche Art selbst mit Glaubensstatuten der Priester und dem Pfaffenthum befa\u00dfte, anstatt sie in den engen Schranken eines blo\u00dfen Lehrstandes (aus dem sie jederzeit in einen regierenden \u00fcberzugehen geneigt sind) zu halten, wie, sage ich, dieser Staat endlich ausw\u00e4rtigen Feinden, die zuletzt seinem herrschenden Glauben ein Ende machten, unvermeidlicher Weise zur Beute werden mu\u00dfte; wie im Occident, wo der Glaube seinen eigenen, von der weltlichen Macht unabh\u00e4ngigen Thron errichtet hat, von einem angema\u00dften Statthalter Gottes die b\u00fcrgerliche Ordnung sammt den Wissenschaften (welche jene erhalten) zerr\u00fcttet und kraftlos gemacht wurden; wie beide christliche Welttheile gleich den Gew\u00e4chsen und Thieren, die, durch eine Krankheit ihrer Aufl\u00f6sung nahe, zerst\u00f6rende Insekten herbeilocken, diese zu vollenden, von Barbaren befallen wurden; wie in dem letztern jenes geistliche Oberhaupt K\u00f6nige wie Kinder durch die Zauberruthe seines angedrohten Bannes beherrschte und z\u00fcchtigte, sie zu einen andern Welttheil entv\u00f6lkernden, ausw\u00e4rtigen Kriegen (den Kreuzz\u00fcgen), zur Befehdung untereinander, zur Emp\u00f6rung der Unterthanen gegen ihre Obrigkeit und zum blutd\u00fcrstigen Ha\u00df gegen ihre anders denkenden Mitgenossen eines und desselben allgemeinen so genannten Christenthums aufreizte; wie zu diesem Unfrieden, der auch jetzt nur noch durch das politische Interesse von gewaltth\u00e4tigen Ausbr\u00fcchen abgehalten wird, die Wurzel in dem Grundsatze eines despotisch gebietenden Kirchenglaubens verborgen liegt und jenen Auftritten \u00e4hnliche noch immer besorgen l\u00e4\u00dft: &#8211; diese Geschichte des Christenthums (welche, sofern es auf einem Geschichtsglauben errichtet werden sollte, auch nicht anders ausfallen konnte), wenn man sie als ein Gem\u00e4lde unter einem Blick fa\u00dft, k\u00f6nnte wohl den Ausruf rechtfertigen: <em>tantum religio potuit suadere malorum<\/em>! wenn nicht aus der Stiftung desselben immer noch deutlich genug hervorleuchtete, da\u00df seine wahre erste Absicht keine andre als die gewesen sei, einen reinen Religionsglauben, \u00fcber welchen es keine streitende Meinungen geben kann, einzuf\u00fchren, alles jenes Gew\u00fchl aber, wodurch das menschliche Geschlecht zerr\u00fcttet ward und noch entzweiet wird, blo\u00df davon herr\u00fchre, da\u00df durch einen schlimmen Hang der menschlichen Natur, was beim Anfange zur Introduction des letztern dienen sollte, n\u00e4mlich die an den alten Geschichtsglauben gew\u00f6hnte Nation durch ihre eigene Vorurtheile f\u00fcr die neue zu gewinnen, in der Folge zum Fundament einer allgemeinen Weltreligion gemacht worden.<\/p>\n<footer>AA 6:130.21 to AA 6.131.29<\/footer>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>So it seems we have a winner. But while long, it\u2019s not clear that this sentence is difficult, or even particularly awful. The structure of the sentence is comparatively simple to break down\u2014Kant gives a list of different failures of historical forms of religion, separated by \u201cwie \u2026\u201d clauses. We then get to the middle part of the sentence (\u201cthis history of Christianity \u2026 might well justify the exclamation \u2026\u201d), before Kant turns to a future form of faith which could arise out of these failed forms of faith.<\/p>\n<p>So while these 438 words technically form one sentence, there is a clear structure in thought to it which makes it much less complex than it initially appears. Indeed, a more advanced observation about Kant\u2019s style is that he often simply bunches several sentences together into one if he thinks they belong to one continuous line of argument; usually, the paragraph follows the argument in a linear fashion (\u201cif you believe \u2026, and you believe \u2026, then it follows \u2026\u201d).<\/p>\n<p>This is obvious if we look for the longest sentence in Kant uninterrupted by a semicolon\u2014the semicolon being a clear sign that different sentences are moved together into one. The longest I could find is the following 238-word sentence from the <em>Critique of Practical Reason<\/em>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Wenn nun also uns Zwecke vorher gegeben werden m\u00fcssen, in Beziehung auf welche der Begriff der Vollkommenheit (einer inneren an uns selbst, oder einer \u00e4u\u00dferen an Gott) allein Bestimmungsgrund des Willens werden kann, ein Zweck aber als Object, welches vor der Willensbestimmung durch eine praktische Regel vorhergehen und den Grund der M\u00f6glichkeit einer solchen enthalten mu\u00df, mithin die Materie des Willens, als Bestimmungsgrund desselben genommen, jederzeit empirisch ist, mithin zum Epikurischen Princip der Gl\u00fcckseligkeitslehre, niemals aber zum reinen Vernunftprincip der Sittenlehre und der Pflicht dienen kann (wie denn Talente und ihre Bef\u00f6rderung nur, weil sie zu Vortheilen des Lebens beitragen, oder der Wille Gottes, wenn Einstimmung mit ihm ohne vorhergehendes, von dessen Idee unabh\u00e4ngiges praktisches Princip zum Objecte des Willens genommen worden, nur durch die Gl\u00fcckseligkeit, die wir davon erwarten, Bewegursache desselben werden k\u00f6nnen), <strong>so <\/strong>folgt erstlich, da\u00df alle hier aufgestellte Principien material sind, zweitens, da\u00df sie alle m\u00f6gliche materiale Principien befassen, und daraus endlich der Schlu\u00df: da\u00df, weil materiale Principien zum obersten Sittengesetz ganz untauglich sind (wie bewiesen worden), das formale praktische Princip der reinen Vernunft, nach welchem die blo\u00dfe Form einer durch unsere Maximen m\u00f6glichen allgemeinen Gesetzgebung den obersten und unmittelbaren Bestimmungsgrund des Willens ausmachen mu\u00df, das einzige m\u00f6gliche sei, welches zu kategorischen Imperativen, d. i. praktischen Gesetzen (welche Handlungen zur Pflicht machen), und \u00fcberhaupt zum Princip der Sittlichkeit sowohl in der Beurtheilung, als auch der Anwendung auf den menschlichen Willen in Bestimmung desselben tauglich ist.<\/p>\n<footer>AA 5:41.16 to 5:41.38<\/footer>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>But again, first looks are deceiving. While there is some stylistic awkwardness in the sentence (e.g., the long parenthetical phrase), the sentence is essentially a long conditional: \u201cif first \u2026, and if second \u2026, then it follows first \u2026, and second \u2026, and finally third \u2026\u201d. The logical structure of the sentence becomes clearer when we look at Mary Gregor\u2019s useful 286-word rendering of the same sentence into English (in the Cambridge edition):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Now, if ends must first be given to us, in relation to which alone the concept of <em>perfection <\/em>(whether internal in ourselves or external in God) can be the determining ground of the will; and if an end as an <em>object <\/em>which must precede the determination of the will by a practical rule and contain the ground of the possibility of such a determination &#8211; hence as the <em>matter <\/em>of the will taken as its determining ground &#8211; is always empirical; then it can serve as the Epicurean principle of the doctrine of happiness but never as the pure rational principle of the doctrine of morals and of duty (so too, talents and their development only because they contribute to the advantages of life, or the will of God if agreement with it is taken as the object of the will without an antecedent practical principle independent of this idea, can become motives of the will only by means of the happiness we expect from them); from this it follows, <em>first, <\/em>that all the principles exhibited here are <em>material; second, <\/em>that they include all possible material principles; and, finally, the conclusion from this, that since material principles are quite unfit to be the supreme moral law (as has been proved), the <em>formal practical principle <\/em>of pure reason (in accordance with which the mere form of a possible giving of universal law through our maxims must constitute the supreme and immediate determining ground of the will) is the <em>sole <\/em>principle that can <em>possibly <\/em>be fit for categorical imperatives, that is, practical laws (which make actions duties), and in general for the principle of morality, whether in appraisals or in application to the human will in determining it.<\/p>\n<footer>Kant, <i>Practical Philosophy<\/i>. Translated and edited by Mary Gregor. Cambridge University Press 1996. Page 173.<\/footer>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Gregor\u2019s translation introduces semicolons into the text, and justifiably so. Again, Kant\u2019s text falls into a natural progression of claims. Other authors would have separated them into several sentences, but Kant preferred to group them together into one. The semicolons Gregor chooses are a sensible middle way to make Kant a bit more accessible to the modern reader, who might not be used to this aspect of Kant\u2019s style. (<span class=\"sidenote\">Another candidate without semicolon is a <a href=\"https:\/\/korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de\/Kant\/aa05\/261.html\">232-word sentence<\/a> in the <i>Critique of Judgment<\/i> (AA 5:261.24), which the Cambridge translation also renders without semicolon.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>So here you have it: the longest sentence in Kant\u2014at least as far as my script could identify\u2014stands at an impressive 438 words. If you think that sentences containing semicolons don\u2019t really count, we\u2019re down to 238 words (amounting to 286 in translation, but with semicolons). On Hicks\u2019 list, this should ensure Kant first place for now.<\/p>\n<p>On a more serious sidenote, however, I should warn not to lazily identify long sentences with bad writing. Kant tends to write long sentences. My (again, very rough) script estimates the average sentence length in Kant at a whopping 34.9 words. But a big reason for this is simply Kant\u2019s preference to move several thoughts into one sentence, rather than separate them into several. This, in the end, is a stylistic choice which need not diminish the intelligiblity of his writing\u2014though you might criticise his style for quite independent reasons, of course.<\/p>\n<p>Update (21 July 2016): Corrected a minor mistake.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I\u2019m an avid Kant reader. But however much you love Kant, one has to admit that he isn\u2019t always the best stylist. In particular, one thing even the casual reader notices is Kant\u2019s tendency to produce very long sentences\u2014what Germans amicably call Bandwurms\u00e4tze. So a question I asked myself is what the longest sentence in [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.matthiasbrinkmann.de\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.matthiasbrinkmann.de\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.matthiasbrinkmann.de\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.matthiasbrinkmann.de\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.matthiasbrinkmann.de\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.matthiasbrinkmann.de\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":322,"href":"https:\/\/www.matthiasbrinkmann.de\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68\/revisions\/322"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.matthiasbrinkmann.de\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.matthiasbrinkmann.de\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.matthiasbrinkmann.de\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}