Strategic challenges for Austrian universities with a special emphasis on Vienna 2010 AD

  Georg Schilling Against white washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures courses  

Table of Contents

1  Introduction  6

2  Cultural studies ethics and KANT  8

2.1  Introduction with BERNHARD KEHLMANN LEVINAS et al  8

2.2  Frank STERN PINK Advanced Chemistry  13

2.3  Prof Dr Frank STERN KANT and Orhan Küçükyılmaz  14

2.4  Tenor(s) of the study  15

3  ( Holy ) Bartolomé DE LAS CASAS  18

3.1  Who was DE LAS CASAS  18

3.2  DE LAS CASAS and human rights development  18

4  Juan LATINO (Juan DE SESA)  19

4.1  Who was Juan LATINO  19

4.2  LATINO: unknown to KANT  19

5  Anton Wilhelm AMO  20

5.1  Who was Anton Wilhelm AMO  20

5.2  What to learn from Anton Wilhelm AMO  20

5.3  Anton Wilhelm AMO and universities today  21

5.4  Anton Wilhelm AMO and his emigration  21

5.5  AMO and the Ding an sich (noumenon)  22

5.6  NTEP on AMO and implications  23

5.7  AMO: unknown to KANT  24

6  David HUME  25

6.1  Enlightening David HUME at WU WIEN  25

6.2  Gilles DELEUZE on HUME  25

6.3  HAYEK and unser weiser Führer David HUME  25

  2  

  Georg Schilling Against white washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures courses  

6.4  DAIRE and MOLINARI on HUME  26

6.5  Gerhard STREMINGER on HUME  26

6.6  DER NEUE BROCKHAUS (1959) on HUME  27

7  Race Rasse Rassengesetze Racism Rassismus  28

7.1  Definition of Rasse with BROCKHAUS  28

7.2  Definition of Races of men by SHAPIRO PARSONS  28

7.3  Definition of Rasse with BROCKHAUS  28

7.4  Definition of Rassismus with BROCKHAUS  29

8  KANT on ethics aesthetics and race  30

8.1  KANT on Africo-American people anno 1764 (1766)  30

8.2  KANT on Frauenzimmer (women) anno 1766 (1764)  32

8.3  Again: KANT on Afro-americans anno 1766 (1764)  33

8.4  KLEIN on KANT s scharfe Beobachtungsgabe  33

8.5  Wolbert G C SMIDT on KANTs Erhabenes  35

8.6  Patrick FRIERSON on KANTs Erhabenes  36

8.7  Monika FIRLA on KANT and Zeitgeist fiction  37

8.8  GRABNER-HAIDER WEINKE on KANT  38

8.9  VOLPI NIDA-RÜMELIN on KANT  39

8.10  PONGS (1976) on KANT  40

8.11  KLOPFER (2008) on KANT and Pietismus  41

8.12  KANT Afro-americans and phlogiston anno 1785  42

8.13  (Sir) Isaiah BERLIN on KANT  43

8.14  BERLIN on KANT s scharfer und äußerst klarer Verstand  44

8.15  KANT: Meister der Architektonik der Vernunft (GADAMER)  45

8.16  WIMMER on KANT and Wilhelm Anton AMO  45

8.17  Helmut FUCHS on KANT  46

  3  

  Georg Schilling Against white washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures courses  

8.19  Nikolaus FRANKE on KANT  47

8.20  Anna GAMPER on KANT  48

8.21  Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT  49

8.22  PERTHOLD SPITZER WALLNER on KANT  50

8.23  Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT  52

8.24  Gerhard LUF on KANT  52

8.25  Again: Gerhard LUF on KANT  55

8.26  Alexander SOMEK on KANT HEGEL and ROUSSEAU  55

8.28  Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT  59

8.29  PERTHOLD SPITZER WALLNER on KANT  60

8.30  Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT  62

8.31  Alexander SOMEK on KANT HEGEL and ROUSSEAU  62

9  KANT on Frauenzimmer (women)  67

9.1  In the wake of a mir san mir mentality  67

9.2  Therese Frey STEFFEN on KANT  67

9.3  Again: KANT on Frauenzimmer (women) anno 1766  67

9.4  Again: Therese Frey STEFFEN on KANT  68

10  HEGEL  70

10.1  RÜPING JEROUSCHEK on HEGEL  70

10.2  COOTER ULEN on HEGEL  70

10.3  Franz Martin WIMMER on HEGEL  71

11  Karl LARENZ and the NS-regime  72

11.1  Karl LARENZ on KANT  72

  4  

  Georg Schilling Against white washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures courses  

11.3  Thomas OLECHOWSKI on LARENZ  74

11.4  Thomas HOEREN on Ur-Vater LARENZ  74

11.5  High quality FAZ HOEREN and Ur-Vater LARENZ  76

12  Conclusion and Outlook  78

13  Bibliography  79

  5  

Georg Schilling – Against „white“-washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures/courses

1 Introduction

At universities, students are often presented (almost) „semi-divine“ 1 personalities, be it

KANT, be it HEGEL, be it HUME, be it other important, influencial thinkers, especially in the field of - so called - „ethics“ 2 , be it e.g. so called „management ethics“, be it so called

„legal ethics“, be it so called „“general“ ethics (courses)“. Some of these students are simply one thing: fed up with the way of in fact almost „gloryfying“ (!) these people. It remains the job of at least some people to at least partially critically (re-)thinking what and how things are presented to students.

The „laws“ of exclusion do work; and they do work quite perfectly here in Vienna; Vienna, a city of critically thinking men and women? Vienna, a city, in which e.g. Immanuel KANT is (also!) presented in a (more) critical manner, e.g. with respect to KANT’s „views“ e.g. on women, on Afro-americans, 3 on Jews? Vienna, a city, in which also a so called „faculty of

law“ exists in which (some!) legal philosophers – nothwithstanding the fact, that many of them would in fact wish to change some ways and words of presenting e.g. KANT, HEGEL, or ROUSSEAU to students – simply, contrary to a sometimes „I-am-willing-to-change- something“ „rhetorics“- do not change anything in the direction e.g. of also informing students at least about the existence of Prof Dr Anton Wilhelm AMO, a contemporary of e.g. Immanuel KANT, a man who had to suffer so many prejudices, who tought at universities,

1 Concerning so called „Ethnophilosophie“, e.g. WIMMER 2004: 58 points out: „Philosophie in postkolonialer Situation kann als Ethnophilosophie die Emanzipation von einer okzidentalen Hegemonie anstreben.“ 2 With respect to so called „ethical“ „questions“ see e.g. SANDNER 1995: 2, whereby the author wants us to know about so called „Unternehmensleitbilder“ („mission statements“): „Sie [sc. the mission statements] sind Ausdruck der ethischen [sic!], moralischen und psychologischen Werthaltungen [sic!] des Unternehmens.“ […] Interestingly, the author does not even start to give a definition of ethics, let alone the fact that he does not even clearly say what he (!) wants to be understood by a „Unternehmensleitbild“ („mission statement“), let (also) alone the fact that he (!) „informs“ by giving us one – of several „explanations“ – of a so called „Unternehmensleitbild“, thus stating „[…] Ein Unternehmensleitbild enthält die grundsätzlichsten [sic!] und damit allgemeingültigsten [sic!], gleichzeitig aber auch abstraktesten [sic!] Vorstellungen über angestrebte Ziele und Verhaltensweisen der Unternehmung“, whereby he – in fact (rather) uncritically (!) – quotes BRAUCHLIN 1984: 313, without criticising – in fact – anything with respect to this „definition“. Besides, the author does not be afraid of adding „moralischen“ („moral“) to – what he calls - „ethischen“ (ethical) „Werthaltungen“. [sic!] 3 Concerning the era of colonisation, e.g. WIMMER 2004: 63 – under the headling „2.2 Entkolonialisierung philosophischer Begriffe“ – writes – with respect to WIREDU - : „Wiredu spricht von der Notwendigkeit einer „begrifflichen Entkolonialisierung“, die im Kontext von Philosophie in Afrika dadurch gegeben sei, dass selbst so zentrale Begriffe wie „Truth, Knowledge, Reality, Self, Person, Space, Time, Life, Matter, Subjectivity“ [sic!] und zahlreiche andere für ihn, dessen Primärsprache das westafrikanische Akan ist, oft und in systematisch wichtigen Zusammenhängen Konnotationen haben, welche bestimmte Thesen der europäischen philosophischen Tradition nicht formulierbar oder zumindest höchst unplausibel erscheinen lassen. […]“. If this is so, why are such aspects not even mentioned in so called „regular“ philosophical (especially: ethical) courses? And: Should there - probably - not be at least some more courses held/given on these aspects with respect to (some?) police officers, judges, public prosecutors, defendants, journalists, „the“ public, and others ? [sic!]

6

Georg Schilling – Against „white“-washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures/courses nothwithstanding racial, (partially) hatred-filled, boastful, texts, spoken and unspoken words. Why not mention e.g. him for instance in the Viennese „Einführungsskripten“ (introductory scripts to law) , also e.g. the script of the corresponding member of the AUSTRIAN

ACADEMY OF SCIENCES („ÖAW“), Univ-Prof Dr Gerhard LUF, a man also educated and

gifted in arts, a man of tremendous knowledge also in literature, a man also known about his opinion on the former „Auwald-Besetzung“ 4 in the KREISKY-era, the conflicts of those days, a personality also known for his favour of football, and: the development of (universal?) human rights? Is there not any time to write at least one word in e.g. a script, thus not directing (in fact, on a large scale) into a (quite) positive thinking of e.g. Immanuel KANT stood for? Why not? Are – in fact: rather simply/clearly presented answers always „good“ answers? Cui bono? Is it probably „bad“ for e.g. forthcoming lawyers, civil rights activists, journalists, public prosecutors, tax managers (etc) not to know at least one (clear!) word about the uncritical texts of KANT, his „thoughts“ on women, or of MONTESQUIEU’s opinion in „L’esprit de la Loi“ with respect to slavery [sic!] ? Why not?

4 With respect to a „Chronik der Ereignisse“ (from 1978 to 1989) see e.g. SANDNER in SANDNER/

GLIEDER/MEYER 1995: 18-22.

7

Georg Schilling – Against „white“-washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures/courses

2 „Cultural“ studies, „ethics“, and KANT!?

2.1 Introduction with BERNHARD, KEHLMANN, LEVINAS et al?

Who does not know the (even though that philosophers are often deemed to be mainly „theoretists“, nonetheless mainly positively 5 associated [and presented 6 ]?) name of

„(Immanuel) KANT“ 7 , often adressed as „einer der größten deutschen Denker“ 8 [sic!]? 9 Who

has not heard of (or read 10 ) the name of „HEGEL“ 11 (, probably also in combination 12 with

the (sometimes called „Vordenker einer idealistischen Philosophie“ 13 ) FICHTE 14 and/or –

probably - SCHELLING 15 )? 16 Who has never heard e.g. of NEWTON 17 , of ROUSSEAU 18 , or

5 E.g. with (KANT’s concept) of the so called „Kategorischer Imperativ“ (categorial imperative). 6 See, for instance, REDER 2006: 54, where KANT is – de facto – presented only in a positive manner, with not any information about sad, negative, shameful aspects; furthermore see, for instance, also KLEIN 2000: 173f. 7 With respect to KANT (in general) see also WOLTERS/SCHWEMMER in MITTELSTRASS 1984: 343-348. 8 See e.g. DER NEUE BROCKHAUS 1959: 63.

9 For instance in the context of KRAWIETZ (1978: 235) with respect to he so called „Neukantianismus“; or in a book e.g. by Prof Dr (Leo) GABRIEL 1961: 160); or in an interesting (art and philosophy) lecture held by Prof Dr Konrad Paul LIESSMANN, held on the basis of one of his books (LIESSMANN 1998: 47), or – in a managerial context – e.g. in the (highly interesting) book of NEUBERGER (2002: 1f), e.g. with respect to the – so called – „Führungsethik“, or in a (nonetheless: often highly interesting) book by PERNTHALER 1996: 74 and 249, or – with respect to e.g. HEIDEGGER – in a book e.g. by SAFRANSKI (1994: 219), with respect to the so called „Neukantianismus“ of CASSIRER; for KANT being mentioned in a novel (about HUMBOLDT et al.) see e.g. KEHLMANN 2005: 22; or 78.

10 For instance in a book by HÖFFE (1990: 25).

11 For instance in a lecture held by Prof Dr Konrad Paul LIESSMANN with respect to one of his books (LIESSMANN 1998: 47); or e.g. in a book by Prof Dr (Leo) GABRIEL 1961: 159; or e.g. in a book of – as they call them – „Meisterdenker“ (masters of thinking) by GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE 2004: 106-107, e.g. with respect to a so called „Weltgeist“ (GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE 2004: 106).

12 See e.g, GADAMER 1992: 289 with respect to the phrase „der ganzen Entwicklung des spekulativen Idealismus von Fichte bis Hegel“.

13 See e.g. GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE 2004: 104.

14 Interestingly, GADAMER 1992: 289 also mentions FICHTE – in fact – (basically) only with positive words when stating about FICHTE: „[…] Es war vor allem Fichte, der das praktische Freiheitsbewusstsein, die Autonomie der Vernunft, auch für den Aufbau der theoretischen Erkenntnis, der sogenannten Wissenschaftslehre, in Anspruch nahm“; FICHTE is – in fact – also only positively presented in a book e.g. by GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE 2004: 104-105.

15 With respect to SCHELLING see e.g. GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE 2004: 108-110, calling SCHELLING an „idealistischer Denker“.

16 Whereas I would cast doubt inhowfar many students or pupils have ever heard of MOSES MENDELSOHN, a person about e.g. GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE 2004: 181 concede: „[…] Er lebte in der jüdischen Glaubensüberzeugung und trat für Milde, Geduld, Sanftmut und Toleranz in der Ethik ein.“ [sic!] 17 With respect to NEWTON, KANT in KIRCHMANN 1873: 329 (also) wrote: „[…] N e w t o n sah zu allererst Ordnung und Regelmässigkeit mit grosser Einfachheit verbunden, wo vor ihm Unordnung und schlimm gepaarte Mannichfaltigkeit anzutreffen waren, uns seitdem laufen Kometen in geometrischen Bahnen.“ 18 With respect to ROUSSEAU, KANT in KIRCHMANN 1873: 329 (also) stated: „[…] R o u s s e a u entedeckte zu allererst unter der Mannichfaltigkeit der menschlichen angenommenen Gestalten die tief verborgene Natur des Menschen und das versteckte Gesetz nach welchem die Vorsehung durch seine Beobachtungen gerechtfertigt wird. Vordem galt noch der Einwurf des A l p h o n s u s und M a n e s. Nach N e w t o n und R o u s s e a u ist Gott gerechtfertigt, und nunmehr ist P o p e ‘s Lehrsatz wahr.“

8

Georg Schilling – Against „white“-washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures/courses

VOLTAIRE 19 ? Who has not heard about the – so called ([time] period of the) – „Deutscher 20

Idealismus“ 21 (, a context in which KANT („der große Philosoph des dt Idealismus“ 22 ) is also

mentioned) 23 ? Who does not associate KANT 24 with „the“ – so called ([time] period 25 of the)

– (German 26 ) „Aufklärung“ 27 (the - so called – „Age of Enlightenment“ 28 ), (furthermore) the

19 But: why is there not any mentioning of sad aspects (especially anti-semitic) aspects in the – if one could say so – „academic“ „philosophical“ „narratives“ ? Furthermore: why is there – e.g. – not a single footnote e.g. of anti-semitic aspects e.g. of VOLTAIRE, when one (such as – e.g. – LINDENBERG 1992:1f) uses works of VOLTAIRE? Why not?

20 With respect to aspects of anti-semitism of German men (e.g. see texts of the late Martin LUTHER [sic!]) see also e.g. the HP of Professor Steven SALZMAN who also quotes some (important) pages of Lucy S. DAWIDOWICZ‘ book „The war against the Jews 1933-1945“ on his (interesting) HP (http://members.surfbest.net/shsaltzman/Dawidowicz.html , „Return to syllabus“, date of retrieval 27.9.2009), whereby it may be stated that at least some aspects of DAWIDOWICZ‘ statements could be casted (some) doubt on, e.g. that DAWIDOWICZ – at least on the quotations of the pages SALZMAN gives his readers on his HP – the readers are not informed, e.g. that e.g. a) the/a „concept“ of race [sic!] (probably better: several „concepts“ of

- so called - „race“?) – at least from the word-origin? – stems from the French [sic!] „la race“ or e.g. b) the „philosopher“ MONTESQUIEU (not rarely mentioned with respect to the age of Enlightenment, DAWIDOWICZ also refers to, and, furthermore, the development of human rights) was – in his work (e.g.?) „L’Esprit de La Loi“ in favour (!) of slavery, and e.g. c) the (Scotish) „philosopher“ HUME was in favour of slavery, too, at least some – only marginal (?) – aspects to be mentioned with respect to a certain „neo-colonial“- approach probably also to be found in other areas of the world, not only limited to German thinkers ? [sic!] And: is it serious and scientific to generalize, e.g. when DAWIDOWICZ is quoted with e.g. the following sentence: „His [sc. Christian Wilhelm von DOHM’s] work On the Civic Betterment of the Jews, Berlin, 1781, presented the case for granting Jews political equality. Its basic argument was .the extraordinary notion that "the Jew is a human being even before he is a Jew." But the idea was too radical for the [sic!] Germans.“: is this generalisation correct?

21 See e.g. LUF in HOLZLEITHNER/SOMEK 2008: 249: „[…] Die zeitgenössischen Diskussionen um die Würde des Menschen bewegen sich im Wesentlichen [sic!] innerhalb [sic!] des „vernunftrechtlichen [sic!] Paradigmas der Kantischen [sic!] Tradition“, with a footnote (footnote 1) on HONNETH (2001: 7). 22 See e.g. PONGS 1976: 1010.

23 See e.g. PONGS 1976: 1010: „Kant, Immanuel (1724-1804): Der große Philosoph des dt. Idealismus [sic!], der den Hochmut [sic!] der Aufklärung überwindet [sic!] und mit der Klärung der Grenzen der Erkenntnis die Ehrfurcht vor dem Sein zurückgewinnt.“ 24 Might one not also associate KANT – to a certain extent? – with Konrad LORENZ, who also supported the NS-regime? Insofar, might one not ask, why – e.g. – KREUZER (1984: 250), at least when giving a short biographical information about Konrad LORENZ (and others) – does not also inform readers (especially?) about LORENZ‘ NS-regime„activities“? (With respect to a comparison between LORENZ and FICHTE see e.g. SENZ 2004: 1f).

25 It is worth to be mentioned, what e.g. SPANN 2006: 62 stated about the „Zeitalter der Aufklärung“: „Das Zeitalter der Aufklärung bekämpfte trotz des Toleranzgedankens den Fremdenhass nicht, weil für eine weitergehende und gesellschaftliche Wahrnehmung des Fremden kein Raum bestand“[sic!]. Furthermore, SPANN 2006: 62 writes: „Das Selbstbild einer vermeintlich homogenen Gemeinschaft sieht keinen Platz für die Fremden vor“. [sic!] Furthermore, could one not ask what exactly, e.g. in (the HABSBURG’s) „own“ (?) Austria „Toleranz“ – actually (!) – ment (or better: not meant? [sic!] e.g. for Jews, e.g. for protestants, furthermore, e.g. for atheists? [sic!] 26 When e.g. LUF in HOLZLEITHNER/SOMEK 2008: 239 writes (also) writes the following sentence „[…] Die deutsche Entwicklung, die in der politischen Philosophie Immanuel Kants und Johann Gottlieb Fichtes wesentliche Klärungen der philosophischen Fundamente [sic!] der [sic!] Menschenrechte hervorbrachte, ist durch eine erst allmählich sich vollziehende Umwandlung der ständischen Ordnung in eine bürgerliche Gesellschaft mit grundrechtlichen Sicherungen charakterisiert. […]“, should one not ask a) inhowfar KANT also thought diametrically opposed to what he wrote (during his life as writer (and also teacher at university, e.g. ? [sic!]) and b) inhowfar KANT did also incorporate Afro-americans and others, such as other enslaved people, as being granted – so called – „universal“ (?) – human rights? What did KANT think e.g. of Afro-americans? Furthermore: did KANT and FICHTE truly give „wesentliche [sic!] Klärungen“ „der“ „philosophischen

9

Georg Schilling – Against „white“-washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures/courses

roots of the history of ideas of human rights („geistesgeschichtliche Wurzeln der

Menschenrechte“ 29 ) or probably with the Austrian writer Thomas BERNHARD 30 ? 31

But are these – de facto, („bei lebensnaher Betrachtung“/according to „realistic reflection“) -

all (almost) „saints“ [sic!], (almost) „holy“, de facto (quite) „undisputable“ (!) people,

lacking 32 of (harsh) faults, (heavy) mistakes, 33 of (strongly) negative 34 , aspects to be

Fundamente“? [sic!] And, again: why does LUF not write any word about the following (unimportant?) question: inhowfar can one – with respect e.g. to KANT and FICHTE – write about „die Menschenrechte“ ([the] human rights)? Were human rights universal for KANT, FICHTE (and others)? [sic!] 27 With respect to the (philosophical) word „Aufklärung“ see also MITTELSTRASS in MITTELSTRASS 1980: 213-218; furthermore: e.g. Prof Dr. OLECHOWSKI (2008: 183) writes about the philosophy of the – so called – „Aufklärung“: „“Die Philosophie der Aufklärung stellte eine Absage an religiöse Weltbilder dar und nahm die Vernunft [sic!] des [sic!] Menschen zum Ausgangspunkt.“ Should one not politely and critically ask: what does OLECHOWSKI mean by „des Menschen“? All [sic!] human beings? Also slaves ? Were enslaved people, e.g. (often) Afro-americans, also regarded as human beings (with open access to – so called (?) – „universal“ human rights ? [sic!]). Is the presentation of OLECHOWSKI correct and true? Is it, to a certain extent, too (probably even „dangerously“) generalising (, in the sense that it helps to „mystify“ to a certain extent the - so called – (Era of) „Enlightenment“? [sic!] And: should OLECHOWKSKI not make a (clear) distinction between „Aufklärung“ a) in the narrow sense of the word and b) the broader (wider) sense of the word (, as e.g. WILPERT 1969: 51 - on the research field of literature - does)?

28 DAWIDOWICZ, quoted from her book „The war against the Jews 1933-1945“ on the interesting HP of Prof. Steven SALZMAN, wrote, (also) with respect tot he – so called – (age of) Enlightenment: „[…] Progress and enlightenment were associated not only with the French and English, but also with Jews. Invoking the universality of these concepts, Jews asked for emancipation, political equality.“

(http://members.surfbest.net/shsaltzman/Dawidowicz.html, date of retrieval, 27.9.2009): in that, of course, no doubt, the hope(s) with respect to this aspect of the Enlightenment, are clearly worth to be mentioned as positive, worth to be supported, worth to be mentioned as highly, not to say, extremely, probably better: tremendously important; especially the aspect that the - so called - „Toleranz“-„understanding“ e.g. of the „Austrian“ Emperor Joseph II (of [the family of] HABSBURG) did in fact restrict [sic!] the aspects supported by thoughts voiced during the age of the Enlightenment by many Jews draws also our attention to the aspect that not everyone is told what – so called - „Toleranz“ did not mean (even though – rather strongly? – associated [sic!] with the (Austrian) aspects of the Enlightenment), e.g. for Jews (or Protestants): how often are we informed about these (sad) aspects? [sic!] (One has to go e.g. to the Jewish Museum in Vienna, to be informed about this aspects, if there is an exhibition in this field (of research) as there was a few years ago.) 29 With respect to these roots whereby KANT (at least) is mentioned in the subindex of those pages of a work where the author refers - according to the heading „§ 77. Die geistesgeschichtlichen Wurzeln der Menschenrechte“) – to KANT, thus – in fact – (strongly?) suggesting that KANT be worth – after all – to be mentioned in this context, see (the author) Em Prof Dr Peter PERNTHALER (1996: 261-262). (PERNTHALER is not the only scientist who mentions KANT in this context without pointing out that KANT hat – in fact – strong and insulting words about e.g. Afro-american/African-american men and women.) 30 With respect to BERNHARD’s play „Immanuel Kant“ and Thomas BERNHARD see e.g. MEYERHOFER 1985: 71-74.

31 With respect to the so called „verzögerte Aufklärung“ (Enlightenment with a „time lag“) in Austria, one could refer to e.g. PRIGLINGER in BENEDIKT (1992: 31-92), although, again, there is not any word to be found about the (harsh, strong) racist aspects of some of KANT’s writings, unfortunately. 32 In fact, when reading e.g. PONGS (1989: 78) with respect to the (key) word „Aufklärung“ one only reads – in fact – positive aspects e.g. about VOLTAIRE (in this context) - : „Voltaire wird eine Art Weltgeist der Aufklärung (1778)“, the same thing being true with e.g. HARENBERG (1997: 1050) with respect to VOLTAIRE.

33 For instance, one will not read any (!) negative sentence about KANT’s racist texts in a book so interesting as the one written bei SCHÖNRICH (1994: 1f); furthermore, SATTIG (1985: 11), when referring to KANT (and also ROUSSEAU or HUME) will not voice any criticsm about KANT’s racist texts; it is also to be mentioned, that, unfortunately, such important (and influencial) historical people such as DE LAS CASAS or LUTHER voiced – de facto – racist thoughts during their lifetime, a fact, which is not mentioned „all too often“. [sic!] (To

10

Georg Schilling – Against „white“-washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures/courses

criticised (, also during their time)? Was (and is) the so called „Enzyklopädie“ 35 (de facto, in a

[certain] way?) „infallible“? Or - to say it clearly – are they „just“ treated (!) as „saints“ or „allmost saints“? 36 As people almost beyond from „another planet“, without 37 reach to our questions, especially critical („kritische“ 38 ), fact-bound („sachliche“ 39 ) questions? And: do „we“ also „know“ „if“ there are any 40 „dark aspects“, any „sads“ concerning their lives, their writings, their „thoughts“? 41 May KANT be mentioned as an „undisputable (!?) example“ of a „philosopher“, able to serve as a (role) model for others? And: Able to serve as a (role) model for other philosophers? And: able to serve as a (role) model for other human beings, to be precise (!): for all (!) human beings, regardless of what „skin“ they have/had/will have ? Is

KANT really „trustworthy“ 42 ? Should we not ask more questions 43 with respect to KANT (or

e.g. HEGEL) 44 ? Is KANT – undisputably (?) – the „Copernicus [sic!] of philosophy“ 45 ?

say it clearly: LUTHER e.g. wrote anti-semitic sentences in his late period of life; DE LAS CASAS e.g. suggested to „use“ Afro-americans instead of indigenous people (from America)).

34 With respect to anti-semitic aspects, one could mention the work of SPANN 2006: 62, in which SPANN points out that KANT, FICHTE and HEGEL had anti-semitic prejudices, whereby it is to be mentioned that SPANN 2006: 62 understands antisemitism as „Antisemitismus ist als Fremdenhass die falsch verstandene Abwehr des Fremden“. (It could be asked, if antisemitism does have – obligatory? - to mean hatred [sic!] against Jews, and whether it could not mean, at least sometimes (?),- more or less- „negative attitude“ towards Jews(, often based on a lack of information about Jews [and non-Jews?]) (?)).

35 As (e.g.) PONGS (1989: 78) puts it: „Die Enzyklopädie 1751-72 wird die „Bibel [sic!] der Aufklärung“ genannt.“ 36 When reading for instance VAIHINGER (1920: 1f), who also mentions texts of KANT (and NIETZSCHE), no one will read any critical word about the existence of racist texts of KANT.

37 Obviously of the opinion that these questions may be (fact-bound, scientifically, politely, but: critically) be posed e.g. HENTGES in KÜHNL/WEISSBECKER 2000: 25-45.

38 To the aspect of „Kritik“ as a „Korrektiv zum speziell gedachten Status quo“ (on the research field of literature), see e.g. PONGS (1989: 528).

39 I admit that the translation of „sachlich“ by „fact-bound“ need not be described as „too“ satisfactory (!). 40 E.g. Prof Dr Norman BOWIE (1999: 1f), professor for strategic management and philosophy, does not mention any of the sad, racist aspects of KANT, de facto [sic!], at least partially, helping to (sort of) „glorify“ KANT (in the field of so called „business ethics“ [sic!]). Is this a serious approach towards the whole (!) KANT? (Even though Prof Dr BOWIE’s book casts many interesting questions with respect to managerial questions!) 41 For instance: if you read a book of e.g. Don Luigi GUISANI (2003:1) you will not – unfortunately not being an exception – read anything about those (strong) negative aspects of KANT or HEGEL we are to refer to in this study, even though GUISSANI (2003: 107) – among(st) other things - mentions the negative aspects of (ancient) Roman Law with regard to so called „human rights“ (Menschenrechte); trenchantly, Em Prof Dr hc Wolf PAUL, to give one example among(st) many other examples, in his – non the less interesting - text „Kritische [sic!] Rechtsdogmatik und Dogmatikkritik [sic!]“ (PAUL in KAUFMANN 1971: 53-70), when quoting KANT with respect to his – as PAUL puts it - „berühmte Definition“ (e.g.: of law), does not mention the „dark sides“ of KANT and/or inhowfar KANT did (also) write (and say) things „we“ are – „normally“ – not familiar with. 42 With respect to the importance of „trustworthiness“ („Glaubwürdigkeit“) e.g. in economics, see also NOWOTNY/ZAGLER 2009: 569 (with respect tot he „Glaubwürdigkeit der Wirtschaftspolitik“); furthermore, I shall – among(st) others - thank also pastoral assistant Hans KOUBA at the VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION for the possibility to discuss questions of the importance of „Vertrauen“ („trust“ in something) in „the“ economy (reality) in general.

43 When KREUZER (1994: 52) – also - wrote „[…] Tatsache ist, dass unsere Pädagogik darin besteht, das man die Kinder mit Antworten [sic!] überhäuft, ohne dass sie Fragen gestellt haben [sic!], und auf die Fragen, die sie

11

Georg Schilling – Against „white“-washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures/courses

Furthermore, from a Jewish 46 perspective, furthermore from a Jewish-Christian 47

perspective, one could ask: are these aspects of KANT and others not also worth to be mentioned? Dr. Markus HIMMELBAUER 48 , for instance, pointed out:

„Die Annäherung zwischen beiden Gemeinschaften in den letzten vier Jahrzehnten steht im Schatten einer Jahrhunderte langen Vorgeschichte.“ 49

Dr. Markus HIMMELBAUER also uses the word „Schatten“ (shadow), and this is also a word we shall draw our attention to. Or, as a tax consultant in an important Austrian tax management company put it: not only are the glads (in the sense of „glad aspects“ [of our company]) of interest to us but also the sads (in the sense of „sad aspects“).

This aspect could also be presented with the picture (concept) of a balance, the thought of a balance sheet:

On the left hand, for instance, we present the glads, on the right hand, for instance, we present the sads (of a company e.g.) Dr. Markus HIMMELBAUER 50 – with reference to the „Jahrhunderte langen Vorgeschichte“ 51 then points out:

„In ihr melden sich eine schwere Last und ein befangenes Langzeitgedächtnis. Dieses Gedächtnis bewahrt ungezählte Erinnerungen erlittener Schmach, Verfolgung und Ermordung

stellen, hört man nicht“ – could one not ask, inhowfar this also is – generally – true with respect to students at universities (e.g.)? [sic!] 44 When one reads e.g. the doctoral thesis of BIRNBACHER (1937: 1f), one will not find any word e.g. about the antisemitic aspects of HEGEL (or the nationalist(ic) aspects of FICHTE?), nothwithstanding the fact that e.g. BIRNBACHER is unfortunately the only one who did not do so.

45 With respect to this description see e.g. (also) BUTLER in KANT (v.ix): „[…] Kant has been properly described as the Copernicus of philosophy. […]“; furthermore see GADAMER 1992: 288, who (also) states that „[…] man ist versucht, seiner eigenen [sc. KANT’s] Darstellung in der Vorrede zur Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1781) recht zu geben, wenn er [sc. KANT] seine kritische Transzendentalphilosophie mit der kopernikanischen Wendung [sic!] vergleicht“.

46 E.g. PD Dr Samuel SALZBORN on the HP of the FONDACION MEMORIA DEL HOLOCAUSTA pointed out that (also) KANT, HEGEL and VOLTAIRE had strong racist aspects in their writings (http://www.fmh.org.ar/revista/16/elanti.htm, date of retrieval 21.9.2009); concerning the „presentation“ of Jews (and so called „Wilden“) in „philosophical“ writings of the 18th and 19th century see (especially) HENTGES 1999: 1f 47 Could one not - also - at least raise (!) the question inhowfar KANT treated e.g. MOSES-MENDELSSOHN (with respect to the end of his life) very correctly and very welcomingly, very warmly, very hartly, also with some of his words after his death in a speach at a (German) University?

48 HIMMELBAUER in KOORDINIERUNGSAUSSCHUSS FÜR CHRISTLICH-JÜDISCHE ZUSAM- MENARBEIT 2009: 6.

49 HIMMELBAUER in KOORDINIERUNGSAUSSCHUSS FÜR CHRISTLICH-JÜDISCHE ZUSAM- MENARBEIT 2009: 6.

50 HIMMELBAUER in KOORDINIERUNGSAUSSCHUSS FÜR CHRISTLICH-JÜDISCHE ZUSAM- MENARBEIT 2009: 6.

51 HIMMELBAUER in KOORDINIERUNGSAUSSCHUSS FÜR CHRISTLICH-JÜDISCHE ZUSAM- MENARBEIT 2009: 6.

12

Georg Schilling – Against „white“-washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures/courses

und eines missglückten Verhältnisses. Es hält Gegenmodelle zu einem offenen Gespräch bereit. Tatsächlich sind es oft dies aus einem negativ bestimmten Gedächtnis aufbrechenden Empfindungen, die das jüdisch-christliche Verhältnis heute mitbestimmen. Die aktuellen Belastungen in diesem Verhältnis belegen dies.“ 52

One philosopher, Prof Dr Branko KLUN from Laibach (Slovenia) also spoke in Vienna about the Jewish thinker LEVINAS and his philosophy. E.g. GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE 2004: 185 state (also) about LEVINAS:

„[…] Biographisch hat seine von der Ethik [sic!] bestimmte Philosophie ihr Fundament in der Shoa, durch die seine jüdische Familie und er selbst Unmenschliches ertragen mussten.“ 53

LEVINAS will also be – in a certain, critical manner – be our guide on others, the way

„others“ are presented. LEVINAS could probably also be regarded as a practical thinker. Insofar, it it is also worth to mention him here in this context.

2.2 Frank STERN, „PINK“, „Advanced Chemistry“?

Prof Dr Frank STERN 54 , an important, but – unfortunately - not all too often mentioned professor of history and so called „cultural studies“ 55 , also interested in film 56 making, is a man who also spoke about the importance of videos, artificial products, or music, in the historical field(s) of research. STERN 57 once also spoke about (and presented) a video of the pop artist „PINK“ at University (title: „Dear Mr President“).

52 HIMMELBAUER in KOORDINIERUNGSAUSSCHUSS FÜR CHRISTLICH-JÜDISCHE ZUSAMMEN- ARBEIT 2009: 6.

53 GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE 2004: 185.

54 See e.g. the HP of the PROJEKTGRUPPE CULTURAL STUDIES: Die Projektgruppe Kulturwissenschaften / Cultural Studies, (http://www.univie.ac.at/culturalstudies/ag/portraits.htm, date of retrieval 4.9.2009). 55 See e.g. the HP of the PROJEKTGRUPPE CULTURAL STUDIES: Die Projektgruppe Kulturwissenschaften / Cultural Studies, (http://www.univie.ac.at/culturalstudies/ag/portraits.htm, date of retrieval 4.9.2009).

schichte und Film“, date of retrieval 4.9.2009).

57 See e.g. the HP of the PROJEKTGRUPPE CULTURAL STUDIES: Die Projektgruppe Kulturwissenschaften / Cultural Studies, (http://www.univie.ac.at/culturalstudies/ag/portraits.htm, date of retrieval 4.9.2009).

Georg Schilling – Against „white“-washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures/courses

When it comes to the musical implications with respect to KANT, it is worth to be mentioned that the (quite famous) hiphop band „Advanced Chemistry“ also performed a song, in which there was to be found a line of words as follows:

„[…]Ich hasse Hesse, bräuchte Brecht, und kenne [sic!] Kant […]“

The question may be posed – with respect to texts probably unknown to many people (even some (?) philosophers !?) – inhowfar the men of the hiphop boy group did (and do?) in fact know what KANT (also) stood (and stands) for; let alone the question what „Ich kenne Kant [sic!]“ should actually, seriously (!) should mean:

When does one (really!) „know“ a person?

Did even KANT „know“ (arg „kennen“) himself? [sic!]

Thus, these questions could also lead us to another one:

inhowfar did not only Immanuel KANT but also we read texts critical? Or is it – probably far too often? – not the sound [sic!] of words we regard (!) as being „good“, „correct“, „smart“? [sic!]

2.3 Prof Dr Frank STERN, KANT, and Orhan Küçükyılmaz?

Orhan Küçükyılmaz 58 wrote a text as follows (also about Immanuel KANT): „Ich kenne Kant

doch kannte Kant Clark Kent und wenn er ihn kennt kennt er ihn als Clark oder als Superman doch dann Kennt Superman aka Clark Kent Kant und kennt er ihn als Kent ja wenn ihr dann Kent kennt und Kant kanntet ist die Kante dann

58 KÜCÜKYILMAZ on LISAS.DE (http://lisas.de/~hakan/file/trash_reden.pdf , „trash reden“, date of retrieval 4.9.2009).

14

Georg Schilling – Against „white“-washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures/courses

das was Kent kannte

oder konnte Clark Kent Kant nicht kennen weil er eine Comicfigur ist???

und wer kennt mich Kant oder Kent???

oder keiner und wie hieß eigentlich Kant mit Vornamen Kennt ihr den???

keiner richtig Immanuel und ihr wollt trash reden“ 59

Again, we may ask:

Does Orhan Küçükyılmaz really „know“ (arg „kennen“) KANT? Or is it just a „pun“ on words, a good sounding „combination“ of words?

The words „trash [sic!] reden“ might lead us into this suggestion.

2.4 „Tenor(s)“ of the study

In the following, we are to start with DE LAS CASAS, then Juan LATINO and furthermore Anton Wilhelm HUME. After this, David HUME and the way of presenting HUME in (important) texts are to be discussed. Then we give quotations of (rarely known) texts of

KANT of the year 1764 (KIRCHMANN: 1766) 60 , in which KANT refers to HUME. These

texts will show us aspects of KANT which are rarely mentioned, and in case they are mentioned are not all to often mentioned in a certain „glossing over“-„manner“. After also asking questions with respect to this text of KANT, we focus on some (often rather important) authors, especially authors who teach at universities, with a special emphasis on Vienna 61 , especially Viennese universities, such as the University of Vienna, especially texts presented

59 KÜCÜKYILMAZ on LISAS.DE (http://lisas.de/~hakan/file/trash_reden.pdf , „trash reden“, date of retrieval 4.9.2009).

60 It shall be stated that KANT also wrote other texts about – what he called – „verschieden Racen der Menschen“ („different races of human beings“), such as the text „Von den verschiedenen Racen der Menschen“ anno 1775 (KANT in KIRCHMANN 1873: 85-107), or the text „Bestimmung des Begriffs einer Menschenrace“ anno 1785 (KANT in KIRCHMANN 1873: 123-142).

61 It could be mentioned that it was in the town of Vienna where Houston Stewart CHAMBERLAIN wrote his book „Die Grundlagen des 19. Jahrhunderts“, which became a „standard“ work of racial and ideological antisemitsm in Germany, and in which – as HAMANN (1996: 288) wrote – he demanded a „natural“ selection according to darwinist(ic) „principles“ (arg „Auch er forderte eine „Zuchtwahl“ nach darwinistischen Grundsätzen: […]“).

15

Georg Schilling – Against „white“-washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures/courses

by the famous KANT-specialist Prof Gerhard LUF at the Departement of Legal Philosophy and Legal Ethics, or the Viennese University of Economics and Business Adminstration. By doing so, we also voice some questions with respect to FICHTE, HERDER, SCHELLING, HEGEL, ROUSSEAU, and VOLTAIRE. After this, we „switch“ into the twentieth century, with a special emphasis on National Socialist supporters on Universities, especially the former Em Prof Dr Karl LARENZ (son of Karl LARENZ senior). It is our goal to point out how important the number of African/Afro-american scientific contribution could be presented, if it were presented to students e.g. in Vienna (or Innsbruck) in the year 2009 (or 2010). Unfortunately, many so called „scientists“ are not interested in rethinking their ways of presenting e.g. the (almost „holy“? almost „infallible“?) Immanuel KANT, the – so called – „holy“ (!?) DE LAS CASAS and other so called scientists who should be regarded as almost divine, especially when it comes to the so called development of (universal?) human rights.

Prof Dr Gerhard LUF or FICHTE- and DE LAS CASAS-specialist Prof Christian STADLER are one of those – nonetheless: very intelligent and highly important and extremely influential – scientists and legal philosophers who are – contrary to several (formal) rhetorics – reluctant to change anything with respect to a more [sic!] „objectived“ „presentation“ of the so called scientists Immanuel KANT, DE LAS CASAS, and others, let alone the fact that they – contrary to certain, not seldomly voiced (formal) rhetorics, words, phrases – would never – so my experiences, at least up to now – even think of writing also something (for the students) about people such as the important scientist Anton Wilhelm AMO or Juan LATINO. What makes me even more sad [sic!], is the fact that I thought Professors of law should be a sort of (positive) „role model“ to other students; especially when it comes to such aspects as writing and speaking e.g. about Latin America, about different countries, different views, different histories. But, to say it even more clearly: something which makes me even more sad than this is the aspect that such important and generally very sympathic a personality as the famous Post-KELSENian and innovative and interesting and unarrogant scientist, thinker and professor of legal philosophy and legal ethics [sic!], Prof SOMEK (in the United States; in Austria) has – how to say it very politely – quite „praised“ the „innovative“ aspect of LUF (and others), also with respect to KANT, FICHTE, HEGEL, etc., an aspect with respect to fact-bound, critical ethical questions, also with respect to KANT, DE LAS CASAS and the absence of even a footnote [sic!] in the sog scripts on „Einführung in die Rechtswissenschaften und ihre Methoden“, especially the script „Einführung in die Rechtsphilosophie und Rechtsethik“ (by Prof Dr Gerhard LUF in Vienna), which makes me

16

Georg Schilling – Against „white“-washing shadows of philosophers in ethics lectures/courses

wonder how „serious“ and „honest“ and „correct“ the words of such important and influencial personalities are to be taken: why not even mention [sic!] racist, disgusting, insulting aspects of a person so often – in fact – (almost) „divinised“ and (almost) „infallibly“ presented, „petrified“, also chauvinist Immanuel KANT? How are students – be it Jewish, be it Afro- american, be it Sinti or Roma, be it Austrian, be it French etc students – „directed“ in a certain, (in fact: just) „convergent“ way of „thinking“ (and probably, in fact, also quite „glorifying“) the (almost „holy“?) Immanuel KANT, DE LAS CASAS, or e.g. HEGEL ? [sic!]

17