Локк ЖЕСТКО о Мартине Хайдеггере:

А знание, конечно, гораздо более двинулось бы вперед в мире, если бы старания даровитых и трудолюбивых людей не загромождалось ученым, но легкомысленным употреблением неуклюжих, манерных или непонятных выражений, введенных в науку и сделавшихся искусством настолько, что философия, которая есть не что иное, как истинное познание вещей, стала считаться непригодной или неспособной вращаться в благовоспитанном обществе и принимать участие в приличном разговоре. Пустые и бессмысленные формы выражения и злоупотребление языком так долго сходили за таинства науки и трудные или неуместные слова, мало или вообще ничего не значящие, за давностью употребления имеют ошибочно столько права считаться глубокой ученостью или вершиной мышления, что нелегко будет убедить говорящих эти слова или слушающих их, что они только прикрывают невежество и являются помехой истинному знанию. Вторжение в святилище тщеславия и невежества сослужит, я погаю, некоторую службу человеческому разуму.

I do not know why it is so, but something makes it difficult for most and impossible for many philosophers and students of the history of philosophy to be impartial about Kant and his teachings. A philosopher who excites so much feeling pro and con is subject to philosophical dispute in which veneration is met with abuse, arguments ad hominem are replied to with arguments ad verecundiam, and more heat than light is generated. I can think of only two other philosophers—Aristotle and Hegel—who have been the object of so much blind vilification and so much blind devotion as Kant.

It has always been so. In his own lifetime the polemics from his opponents reached a degree of acerbity more characteristic of
theological debate than of philosophical. His disciples bitterly disputed among themselves the claim to be the "official" spokesman for Kant, and disciples who fell away from orthodoxy were treated with contumely by the others and by the master himself. A hundred years later the violence of controversy between the various schools of Neokantianism in Germany had not abated and, of course, neither had the heat of debate between professional anti-Kantians and professed Kantians
<...>
I must not pretend to stand impartially above the battle; I must confess that I was powerfully drawn to Kant even as a child long before I had any comprehension of his philosophy. Fifty years later I am still unable to explain why, but it is a fact that you should keep in mind while you listen to my examination of Lovejoy's critique of Kant.

Though I do not know the details of Lovejoy's intellectual biography as a young man, an animus against Kant shows in all his early writings about him. I knew Lovejoy only when he was an old man, when he was silent about Kant; he had not even included in his bibliography attached to his autobiographical essay in Contemporary American Philosophy his articles on Kant. When I knew him, his erudition, acuteness, and judiciousness were so comprehensive that there seemed to be no room left for human failings of partiality and prejudice; he did not even hold it against me that I was a "Kantian." I cannot guess why his feelings had been so bitter against Kant; I can only point out some of the evidence that they were.
(Lewis White Beck, Lovejoy as a Critic of Kant)

Кажется моя нелюбовь к переводческой работе состоит буквально в этом (помимо стандартных трудностей с подбором слов и выражений, слежки за стилем и звучанием письма и т.д.):

"Also, in a perverse way, I just enjoy translating, it's like opening one's mouth and hearing someone else's voice emerge"
(Murdoch, Under the Net)

😡😡😡😡😡😡😡
May not they apprehend that our People are as ignorant as the Muscovites... (Free-Thinking rightly stated)
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

Было:

Such intellectual work as I have ever accomplished has always left me with a sense of having achieved nothing: one looks back through the thing as through an empty shell; but whether this is because of the nature of intellectual work as such, or whether it is because I am no good, I have never been able to decide. If one no longer feels in living contact with whatever thought the work contains, the thing seems at best dry and at worst stinking; and if one does still feel this contact the work is infected through it with the shifting emptiness of present thought. Though it may be that if one had any present thoughts that were at all considerable they would not have this quality of emptiness. I wonder if Kant, as he conceived his Copernican Revolution, said to himself from time to time, 'But this is nothing, nothing'? I should like to think that he did.

Murdoch, Under the Net

У Фонтенеля есть забавный текст под названием "Диалоги мертвых".
В нем есть диалог Декарта и Лжедмитрия (3), в котором Лжедмитрий (3) следующим образом тролит Декарта:

Не боитесь ли вы примера столь многих философов, которые, имея столь же обоснованные мнения, как и ваше, в конце концов были признаны плохими философами? Можно назвать великое множество таких философов, а вы могли бы назвать только двух лже-Дмитриев, которые были до меня. Я был только третьим в своем роде, взявшимся обманывать москвичей [московитов]; но не были ли вы тысячным в своем....

Третьим был И. Кант, который жаловался, что от нефрактурных книг глаза болят (что правда)