Kant’s work does have a game/decision theoretic aspect. I think it is closer to something like logical decision theory, as well as a solution to some co-ordination problems. The lagrange multipliers example is not really hitting the compelling insight behind Kant’s Categorical Imperatives.
Also, I think there may be something to your idea, but I don’t think the examples you chose really work. Simple maths concepts are natural, and make for tempting interpretations of confusing messes (oh, it’s just X plus a lot of waffling). However, I wouldn’t trust an interpretation like that unless you can also describe how it generated the kind of confused description you think you’re seeing. Try getting on a gut level the spark of insight that prompted a person’s thoughts first.
Kant’s work does have a game/decision theoretic aspect. I think it is closer to something like logical decision theory, as well as a solution to some co-ordination problems. The lagrange multipliers example is not really hitting the compelling insight behind Kant’s Categorical Imperatives.
Also, I think there may be something to your idea, but I don’t think the examples you chose really work. Simple maths concepts are natural, and make for tempting interpretations of confusing messes (oh, it’s just X plus a lot of waffling). However, I wouldn’t trust an interpretation like that unless you can also describe how it generated the kind of confused description you think you’re seeing. Try getting on a gut level the spark of insight that prompted a person’s thoughts first.