This article critically examines some of the main arguments of Stephen Palmquist’s Kant and Mysticism. While I agree with Palmquist that Kant admits the possibility of certain indirect forms of mystical experience, I argue that Palmquist makes Kant out to be more of a mystic than he actually was. In particular, I contend that Palmquist fails to provide convincing justification of two of his main claims: that Kant was a mystic or at least had strong mystical tendencies and that some (...) of the experiences that are central to Kant’s philosophy are best understood as mystical experiences. (shrink)