Meaning: The quote "No real blood flows in the veins of the knowing subject constructed by Locke, Hume, and Kant, but rather the diluted extract of reason as a mere activity of thought" by Wilhelm Dilthey, a German historian and philosopher, encapsulates a critical perspective on the philosophical foundations laid down by prominent Enlightenment thinkers. This quote reflects Dilthey's critique of the rationalist and empiricist views of knowledge, consciousness, and the self in the works of John Locke, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant.

Locke, Hume, and Kant are often regarded as key figures in the development of modern Western philosophy, particularly in their contributions to epistemology and metaphysics. Locke's empiricism emphasized the role of sensory experience in shaping human understanding, while Hume's skeptical empiricism questioned the possibility of certain knowledge and causality. Kant, on the other hand, sought to reconcile rationalism and empiricism by proposing a framework of transcendental idealism, which posited that human knowledge is shaped by both sensory experience and innate cognitive structures.

Dilthey's critique challenges the notion of the "knowing subject" as conceived by these philosophers. He argues that the rationalist and empiricist traditions, exemplified by Locke, Hume, and Kant, reduce the human subject to a mere vessel of reason, devoid of the vitality and complexity of lived experience. The metaphor of "no real blood flows in the veins" suggests a lack of vitality and humanity in the conception of the knowing subject put forth by these thinkers.

Dilthey's emphasis on the "diluted extract of reason as a mere activity of thought" underscores his rejection of the reductionist tendencies in Enlightenment philosophy. He contends that reason, as understood within the frameworks of Locke, Hume, and Kant, is divorced from the rich, embodied, and affective dimensions of human existence. Instead of acknowledging the full range of human experiences, emotions, and cultural contexts, the rationalist and empiricist traditions tend to prioritize abstract reasoning and detached observation.

In Dilthey's own philosophical work, he sought to develop a more holistic and context-sensitive understanding of human consciousness and historical understanding. His approach, known as hermeneutics, emphasized the importance of interpretation, empathy, and the study of cultural expressions in grasping the complexity of human life. By contrast with the abstract and decontextualized "knowing subject" of the Enlightenment tradition, Dilthey's hermeneutic approach aimed to situate knowledge within the broader contexts of culture, history, and lived experience.

Dilthey's critique of the knowing subject constructed by Locke, Hume, and Kant resonates with broader debates in philosophy regarding the nature of human consciousness, the limits of reason, and the significance of subjective experience. His perspective invites a reevaluation of the Enlightenment legacy, urging a more nuanced understanding of the human subject that encompasses both rational faculties and the richness of embodied, emotional, and historical existence.

In conclusion, Wilhelm Dilthey's quote challenges the reductionist conceptions of the knowing subject put forth by Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke, Hume, and Kant. His critique emphasizes the need to acknowledge the full complexity of human experience and understanding, moving beyond the narrow confines of abstract reason. Dilthey's perspective invites us to reconsider the relationship between reason, lived experience, and historical context, offering a valuable critique of the limitations of the Enlightenment tradition in capturing the full depth of human consciousness and knowledge.