[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.
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: