[H]is argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s
consciousness, but of any consciousness, of
consciousness as such. His argument, in essence, ran as
follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific
nature, which perceives by specific means and no others,
therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind,
because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears --
deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he
perceives do not exist, because he perceives them.
The article you
linked does
mention Kant, though apparently Stove was easier on him than
Rand was:
Talk of ‘forms of perception’, and ‘things in themselves’
may suggest Kant, but it is not clear that Kant was
imposed on by a ‘Worst Argument’. Stove does pin a few
small Gems on him (Stove, 1991, 160), but they are not
central to his argument.
An attempt to find the worst argument in the world.
This reminded me of Ayn Rand on Immanual Kant:
The article you linked does mention Kant, though apparently Stove was easier on him than Rand was: