Who was Anton Wilhelm AMO ? Was KANT a "saint"? Is KANT "trustworthy"? Was DE LAS CASAS "trustworthy"? These questions arose when one of my former colleagues, Prof Dr Martin SPITZER voiced a critical question with respect to DE LAS CASAS in one of his highly interesting courses. It was not only SPITZER but also the wish to send my dead relative Em Prof Dr Kurt SCHUBERT who founded the departement for Jewish Studies at the University of Vienna a "message" about the importance of being critical about basically all too often quite "convergently" presented (pseudo-)facts e.g. with respect to KANT.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.2 „Tenor(s)“ of the study
2 („Holy“?) Bartolomé DE LAS CASAS
2.1 Who was DE LAS CASAS?
2.2 DE LAS CASAS and human rights „development“!?
3 Juan LATINO (Juan DE SESA)
3.1 Who was Juan LATINO ?
3.2 LATINO: unknown to KANT?!
4 Anton Wilhelm AMO
4.1 Who was Anton Wilhelm AMO?
4.2 AMO and the „Ding an sich“ (noumenon)?
4.3 NTEP on AMO and implications?
4.4 AMO: unknown to KANT!?
5 David HUME
5.1 „Enlightening“ David HUME at „WU WIEN“?
5.2 Gilles DELEUZE on HUME?
5.3 HAYEK and „unser weiser Führer“ David HUME?
5.4 DAIRE and MOLINARI on HUME?
5.5 Gerhard STREMINGER on HUME?
6 Race/“Rasse“; „Rassengesetze“; Racism/“Rassismus“
6.1 Definition of „Rasse“ with BROCKHAUS?
6.2 Definition of „Rasse“ with BROCKHAUS?
6.3 Definition of „Rassismus“ with BROCKHAUS?
7 Immanuel KANT
7.1 KANT on Africo-American people anno 1764 (1766)?
7.2 Again: KANT on Afro-americans anno 1766?
7.3 KLEIN on KANT’s „scharfe Beobachtungsgabe“?
7.4 Wolbert G. C. SMIDT on KANTs „Erhabenes“?
7.5 Patrick FRIERSON on KANTs „Erhabenes“?
7.6 Monika FIRLA on KANT and ‚Zeitgeist‘-fiction?
7.7 KANT, Afro-americans and „phlogiston“ anno 1785?
7.8 (Sir) Isaiah BERLIN on KANT?
7.9 BERLIN on KANT‘s „scharfer und äußerst klarer Verstand“?
7.10 KANT: „Meister der Architektonik der Vernunft“(GADAMER)?
7.11 WIMMER on KANT and Wilhelm Anton AMO?
7.12 Helmut FUCHS on KANT?
7.13 Christof MÜLLER on KANT?
7.14 Nikolaus FRANKE on KANT?
7.15 Anna GAMPER on KANT ?
7.16 Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT?
7.17 PERTHOLD/SPITZER/WALLNER on KANT?
7.18 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT?
7.19 Gerhard LUF on KANT?
7.20 Again: Gerhard LUF on KANT?
7.21 Alexander SOMEK on KANT, HEGEL and ROUSSEAU?
7.22 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on KANT?
7.23 Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT?
7.24 PERTHOLD/SPITZER/WALLNER on KANT?
7.25 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT?
7.26 Gerhard LUF on KANT?
7.27 Again: Gerhard LUF on KANT?
7.28 Alexander SOMEK on KANT, HEGEL and ROUSSEAU?
7.29 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on KANT?
8 HEGEL
8.1 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on HEGEL?
8.2 COOTER/ULEN on HEGEL?
8.3 WIMMER on HEGEL?
9 Karl LARENZ and the NS-regime
9.1 Karl LARENZ on KANT?
9.2 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on LARENZ?
9.3 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on LARENZ?
10 Conclusion and „Outlook“?
11 Bibliography
Research Objectives and Themes
This work aims to provide a critical and scientifically grounded analysis of rarely mentioned, often negative aspects of renowned philosophers, specifically focusing on Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, and David Hume. The author questions why academic discourse frequently glosses over racist and antisemitic sentiments present in the works of these "philosophical giants" and explores how this selective presentation impacts contemporary legal education and ethical understanding.
- The critical re-evaluation of the "Enlightenment" and the intellectual history of human rights.
- The exploration of overlooked figures like Anton Wilhelm Amo and Juan Latino.
- The critique of modern academic practices in presenting philosophers as infallible "science saints."
- The investigation of racist and antisemitic assertions found in the original writings of Kant, Hegel, and Hume.
Extract from the Book
7.1 KANT on Africo-American people anno 1764 (1766)?
In the year 1764 (!) - according to KIRCHMANN in the year 1766 - KANT wrote in his „Beobachtungen über das Gefühl des Erhabenen und Schönen“ (Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime), in the „Vierter Abschnitt“ about – as KANT wrote – „Von den Nationalcharakteren, insofern sie auf dem unterschiedlichen Gefühle des Erhabenen und Schönen beruhen“:
„Unter den Völkerschaften unseres Welttheiles sind meiner Meinung nach die I t a l i e n e r und F r a n z o s e n diejenigen, welche im Gefühle des S c h ö n e n, die D e u t s c h e n, E n g l ä n d e r und S p a n i e r aber, die durch das Gefühl des E r h a b e n en sich unter allen übrigen am meisten ausnehmen. […]“
Apart from this opinion (arg „meiner Meinung“) KANT also writes about Afro-Americans thus claiming:
„Die N e g e r von Afrika haben von der Natur kein Gefühl, welches über das Läppische stiege. Herr Hume [that is: David HUME] fordert Jedermann auf, ein einziges Beispiel anzuführen, da ein Neger Talente gewiesen habe, und behauptet: dass unter den Hunderttausenden von Schwarzen die aus ihren Ländern anderwärts verführt werden, obgleich deren sehr viele auch in Freiheit gesetzt würden, dennoch nicht ein Einziger jemals gefunden worden, der entweder in Kunst oder Wissenschaft oder in irgend einer anderen rühmlichen Eigenschaft etwas Grosses vorgestellt habe, obgleich unter den Weissen sich beständig welche aus dem niedrigsten Pöbel emporschwingen und durch vorzügliche Gaben in der Welt ein Ansehen erwerben. […]“
Is this believable? How could KANT write such a nonsense? How can a philosopher, often presented as a man in favour of (universal?) human rights, of freedom (etc) write such a harsh stupidity? How critical – in fact, summa summarum – was KANT? What sort of so called „Vernunft“ (!) did KANT use while(st) writing these words?
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides an overview of the study's goal to critically examine the often positive, unquestioning reception of major Enlightenment philosophers.
2 („Holy“?) Bartolomé DE LAS CASAS: Explores the contradictions regarding Las Casas as a human rights pioneer in light of his colonial context.
3 Juan LATINO (Juan DE SESA): Introduces the life and work of Juan Latino, highlighting his scholarly achievements during the Renaissance despite racial hierarchies.
4 Anton Wilhelm AMO: Details the intellectual journey and subsequent erasure of the Ghanaian-born philosopher Anton Wilhelm Amo.
5 David HUME: Critically analyzes the presentation of David Hume in academic texts, noting the omission of his racist sentiments.
6 Race/“Rasse“; „Rassengesetze“; Racism/“Rassismus“: Analyzes the terminology of race and racism through historical and encyclopedic definitions.
7 Immanuel KANT: A central, extensive chapter documenting and critiquing the racist and disparaging remarks made by Kant regarding non-European peoples.
8 HEGEL: Examines Hegel’s works with a focus on his problematic and exclusionary views often ignored in current academic discourse.
9 Karl LARENZ and the NS-regime: Discusses the role of legal scholar Karl Larenz and his involvement with National Socialist ideology.
10 Conclusion and „Outlook“?: Reflects on the implications of these findings for modern education, urging for a more critical approach to historical figures.
11 Bibliography: Lists the academic sources used to support the critical analysis throughout the study.
Keywords
Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, David Hume, Enlightenment, Racism, Antisemitism, Human Rights, Anton Wilhelm Amo, Juan Latino, Critical Philosophy, Academic Integrity, Legal Education, Colonialism, Philosophy of History, Discrimination.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental purpose of this work?
The work aims to challenge the predominantly uncritical, idealized presentation of major philosophers like Kant and Hegel in academic circles by highlighting their documented racist and antisemitic statements.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The themes include the critical history of Enlightenment thought, the identification of suppressed or overlooked intellectual contributions by non-European figures, and the examination of structural racism in philosophical and legal discourse.
What is the central research question?
The author questions whether it is intellectually honest and scientifically sound to "glorify" philosophers while ignoring their dehumanizing rhetoric, and how such selective history influences current academic institutions.
Which scientific methods are applied?
The author employs a critical, fact-bound, and investigative approach, utilizing original texts, historical records, and a comparative analysis of how these philosophers are taught in contemporary university settings.
What content is addressed in the main body?
The body contains detailed discussions of Kant's, Hegel's, and Hume's writings on race, comparisons to forgotten scholars like Amo and Latino, and critiques of legal scholars who overlook these dark aspects of history.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Immanuel Kant, Racism, Enlightenment, Philosophy, Human Rights, and Academic Integrity.
How does the author characterize the "Insel-Beispiel" by Kant?
The author highlights Kant's "island example" as a chilling illustration of his rigid, uncompromising stance on the death penalty, arguing that it contradicts his reputation as a proponent of universal human rights.
What is the significance of including Anton Wilhelm Amo?
Amo represents a "suppressed" intellectual legacy; by highlighting his life, the author demonstrates the contrast between the innovative contributions of indigenous scholars and the exclusionary practices of the German academic tradition of that time.
- Quote paper
- Mag. Georg Schilling (Author), 2009, „Remapping the Jungle…“? - „Enlightening“, „white“-washing „shadows“ of Kant et al.!?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/137483
