Kant can provide, and has provided, a good model for philosophers to think about the relation of metaphysics to science and scientific methodology.

We can treat human responses to cognitions as involving law-like connections grounded on free choices which show themselves in our character.

I don't think Kant's theory looks bad to people except insofar as they have misunderstood it (for instance, as heartless and ironheaded, or as committed to an absurd metaphysical conception of freedom that violates Kant's own philosophy).

Kant does not think that along with choice of an action we also choose in each case the motive from which we do it. He thinks all is well if I act beneficently, realizing that it is my duty but also having sympathetic feelings for the person I help. But I ought to strive to be the sort of person who would still help even if these feelings were absent. And it is such a case that he presents when the sympathetic friend of humanity finds his sympathetic feelings overclouded by his own sorrows, and still acts beneficently from duty.

I think the contribution people make is not proportionate to their fame or success. In fact, I think the relation is often inverse.

Fichte is concerned with freedom as non-domination.

It seems to me self-evident that it is worthwhile to understand the best thoughts of the past, to appropriate them, to criticize them.