Excerpt
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction with BERNHARD, KEHLMANN, LEVINAS et al?
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 What to learn from Anton Wilhelm AMO?
4.3 Anton Wilhelm AMO and „universities“ today?
4.4 Anton Wilhelm AMO and his emigration?
4.5 AMO and the „Ding an sich“ (noumenon)?
4.6 NTEP on AMO and implications?
4.7 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?
5.6 DER NEUE BROCKHAUS (1959) on HUME?
6 Race/“Rasse“; „Rassengesetze“; Racism/“Rassismus“
6.1 Definition of „Rasse“ with BROCKHAUS?
6.2 Definition of „Races of men“ by SHAPIRO/PARSONS?
6.3 Definition of „Rasse“ with BROCKHAUS?
6.4 Definition of „Rassismus“ with BROCKHAUS?
7 Immanuel KANT
7.1 KANT on Africo-American people anno 1764 (1766)?
7.2 KANT on „Frauenzimmer“ (women) anno 1766 (1764)?
7.3 Again: KANT on Afro-americans anno 1766 (1764)?
7.4 KLEIN on KANT’s „scharfe Beobachtungsgabe“?
7.5 Wolbert G. C. SMIDT on KANTs „Erhabenes“?
7.6 Patrick FRIERSON on KANTs „Erhabenes“?
7.7 Monika FIRLA on KANT and ‚Zeitgeist‘-fiction?
7.8 GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE on KANT?
7.9 VOLPI/NIDA-RÜMELIN on KANT?
7.10 PONGS (1976) on KANT?
7.11 KLOPFER (2008) on KANT and „Pietismus“!?
7.12 KANT, Afro-americans and „phlogiston“ anno 1785?
7.13 (Sir) Isaiah BERLIN on KANT?
7.14 BERLIN on KANT‘s „scharfer und äußerst klarer Verstand“?
7.15 KANT: „Meister der Architektonik der Vernunft“(GADAMER)?
7.16 WIMMER on KANT and Wilhelm Anton AMO?
7.17 Helmut FUCHS on KANT?
7.18 Christof MÜLLER on KANT?
7.19 Nikolaus FRANKE on KANT?
7.20 Anna GAMPER on KANT ?
7.21 Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT?
7.22 PERTHOLD/SPITZER/WALLNER on KANT?
7.23 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT?
7.24 Gerhard LUF on KANT?
7.25 Again: Gerhard LUF on KANT?
7.26 Alexander SOMEK on KANT, HEGEL and ROUSSEAU?
7.27 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on KANT?
7.28 Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT?
7.29 PERTHOLD/SPITZER/WALLNER on KANT?
7.30 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT?
7.31 Alexander SOMEK on KANT, HEGEL and ROUSSEAU?
7.32 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on KANT?
8 HEGEL
8.1 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on HEGEL?
8.2 COOTER/ULEN on HEGEL?
8.3 Franz Martin 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?
9.4 Thomas HOEREN on „Ur-Vater“ LARENZ?
9.5 „High quality“ ? - FAZ, HOEREN, and „Ur-Vater“ LARENZ?
10 Conclusion and „Outlook“?
11 Bibliography
1 Introduction
1.1 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[1] associated [and presented[2] ]?) name of „(Immanuel) KANT“, often adressed as „einer der größten deutschen Denker“[3] [sic!]?[4] Who has not heard of (or read[5]) the name of „HEGEL“[6] (, probably also in combination[7] with the (sometimes called „Vordenker einer idealistischen Philosophie“[8]) FICHTE[9] and/or – probably - SCHELLING[10])?[11] Who has never heard e.g. of NEWTON[12], of ROUSSEAU[13], or VOLTAIRE[14] ? Who has not heard about the – so called ([time] period of the) – „Deutscher[15] Idealismus“[16] (, a context in which KANT („der große Philosoph des dt Idealismus“[17]) is also mentioned)[18] ? Who does not associate KANT[19] with „the“ – so called ([time] period[20] of the) – (German[21]) „Aufklärung“[22] (the - so called – „Age of Enlightenment“[23]), (furthermore) the roots of the history of ideas of human rights („geistesgeschichtliche Wurzeln der Menschenrechte“[24]) or probably with the Austrian writer Thomas BERNHARD[25] ?[26]
But are these – de facto, („bei lebensnaher Betrachtung“/according to „realistic reflection“) - all (almost) „saints“ [sic!], (almost) „holy“, de facto (quite) „ undisputable “ (!) people, lacking[27] of (harsh) faults, (heavy) mistakes,[28] of (strongly) negative[29], aspects to be criticised (, also during their time)? Was (and is) the so called „Enzyklopädie“[30] (de facto, in a [certain] way?) „infallible“? Or - to say it clearly – are they „just“ treated (!) as „saints“ or „allmost saints“?[31] As people almost beyond from „another planet“, without[32] reach to our questions, especially critical („kritische“[33] ), fact-bound („sachliche“[34] ) questions ? And: do „we“ also „know“ „if“ there are any[35] „dark aspects“, any „sads“ concerning their lives, their writings, their „thoughts“?[36] 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“[37] ? Should we not ask more questions[38] with respect to KANT (or e.g. HEGEL)[39] ? Is KANT – undisputably (?) – the „Copernicus [sic!] of philosophy“[40] ?
Furthermore, from a Jewish[41] perspective, furthermore from a Jewish-Christian[42] perspective, one could ask: are these aspects of KANT and others not also worth to be mentioned? Dr. Markus HIMMELBAUER[43], for instance, pointed out:
„Die Annäherung zwischen beiden Gemeinschaften in den letzten vier Jahrzehnten steht im Schatten einer Jahrhunderte langen Vorgeschichte.“[44]
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[45] – with reference to the „Jahrhunderte langen Vorgeschichte“[46] then points out:
„In ihr melden sich eine schwere Last und ein befangenes Langzeitgedächtnis. Dieses Gedächtnis bewahrt ungezählte Erinnerungen erlittener Schmach, Verfolgung und Ermordung 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.“[47]
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.“[48]
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.
1.2 „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)[49], 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[50], especially Viennese universities, such as the University of Vienna, especially texts presented 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 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!]
2 („Holy“?) Bartolomé DE LAS CASAS
2.1 Who was DE LAS CASAS?
Bartolomé de LAS CASAS was a person of the Roman-Catholic church. During his life, he changed his opinion about the treatment of indigenous people of so called Latin-America. As e.g. CRUZ-BENEDETTI points out,
„unter später dem Druck des Dominikanerpaters Bartolomé de las Casas (1474-1566) Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts vom spanischen König erlassenenen Indianerschutzgesetze, kam es zu einer massiven Einfuhr afrikanischer [sic!] Sklaven“.
2.2 DE LAS CASAS and human rights „development“!?
Why is DE LAS CASAS so often mentioned in the context of the „development“ of human rights? („Entwicklung der Menschenrechte“) Were this rights (and are they, even, too !?) „universal“ human rights? But, much more fundamental a question:
Did DE LAS CASAS even think [sic!] of such a concept of („universal“?!) „human rights“?
And, again: why is the „substitution“ of Latin american indigenous human beings by African human beings – with respect to ethics; furthermore with respect to a Roman-Catholic law of those days; furthermore with respect to Roman-Catholic law of our days – even worth to be thought of / to adress / think of DE LAS CASAS as a saint ? [sic!] Why? Cui bono? [sic!]
3 Juan LATINO (Juan DE SESA)
3.1 Who was Juan LATINO ?
Juan LATINO (Juan DE SESA[51]) was a professor at Granada during the sixteenth century. He, who came from Guinea, was the only „black“/“indigenous“-African Latinist, scholar and writer during the European „renaissance“. LATINO tought grammar and Latin in Granada (at a Cathedral school). Furthermore, he was also a musician. LATINO wrote three volumes of poems between 1573 and 1585.[52] He reflected on the black condition. LATINO refused a „social“ hierarchy based on skin colour prejudices.[53]
3.2 LATINO: unknown to KANT?!
The most probable answer might not be that KANT did not know about LATINO but that he did not [sic!] want (!) to „know“ LATINO. From what we will read about KANT, we might quite easy get this impression; KANT - probably one should already say: the „semi-divine“ [sic!] Immanuel KANT – was a man with prejudices; furthermore he may be said to be a man who was a Chauvinist, a racist, a person who knows quite everything better than other people; a person who writes about such „noble“ thoughts as being critical and using one’s „Vernuft“, but who – beyond the „surface“ – had a hugh amount of prejudices, using lots of stereotypes, in fact being often, during his life (probably his whole life? [sic!]) not really critical, also about what he read.
4 Anton Wilhelm AMO
4.1 Who was Anton Wilhelm AMO?
Anton Wilhelm AMO (also known as „Antonius Guilielmus Amo Afer ab Aximo“) was a man, an indigenous personality, from what today is to be called „ Ghana “. He was enslaved, came to Germany, was allowed to study, learnt several languages (German, English, French, Latin, Hebrew, Greek, Dutch), became „Magister“ (master) in philosophy and – so called - „liberal arts“ , later on, he made his PhD. As e.g. Prof Dr Scott W. WILLIAMS[54] puts it „In 1729 he [sc. AMO] graduated from Halle in law with his Disputation[55] De jure Maurorum in Europa . In 1730 Amo went to Wittenberg University and in the same year gained a degree as Doctor of Philosophy.“[56] Furthormore, WILLIAMS also states: „As his [sc. Second!] Disputation was published, Amo was made Professor of Philosophy.“[57] (AMO’s second (!) doctoral thesis was published in 1734.[58])
4.2 What to learn from Anton Wilhelm AMO?
In another text of 1738 (Title in English: „Treatise on the Art of Philosophising Soberly and Accurately“), AMO also examined and criticised faults such as intellectual dishonesty, dogmatism, and prejudice, an aspect which I personally regard to be very (!) important in what is called „philosophy“ or „the right philosophy“ in our days, in our time, but not only in the field of philosophy, but also on the field of ethics, furthermore on the field of scientific ethics – if such a word even in fact exists!, especially on the field of all sciences.
(Fact -based, fact -bound, polite, but clearly and directly voiced) „criticism“/“critique“ (?), fact bound criticism is often not wanted in so called „scientific communities“ (exceptions!), those who – politely – criticise thinks will be called „Geschäftsbetriebsstörer“[59] [sic!] of a so called „university“, today not rarely a building in which questions, especially fact-bound, critical ones, are – contrary to certain, often very strong marketing rhetorics (!) – not wished to be posed.
4.3 Anton Wilhelm AMO and „universities“ today?
What would AMO think of today’s so called „universities“, e.g. the University of Vienna? What would AMO say today when reading (only) about HUME, but not any word at WU Wien („Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration“) on himself, LATINO, and others? Would he have called such a „university“ a (truly!) „international“ one? Would he even be tought that such a person – with respect to a university such as the WU Wien, which is said to be quite proud of its „international“ contacts – as AMO existed, next to HUME, KANT, HEGEL, SCHELLING, FICHTE et al?
Furthermore, apart from this question:Would AMO ever have heard about the racist aspects, the racist texts of KANT, HEGEL, or HUME ?
What is to be done to enhance our knowledge on the thoughts of AMO? Will there be a support to enhance works on AMO, and his thoughts, feelings, and ideas?
4.4 Anton Wilhelm AMO and his emigration?
To (partially) sum it up, AMO tought at several universities (HALLE, WITTENBERG, and JENA); as e.g. Prof Dr WILLIAMS put it: „At Halle, he [sc. AMO] taught psychology, 'natural law' and the decimal system - a universality which was then customary.“[60] AMO had to face several racist attacks[61] ; finally, he – probably also (!) as a consequence to racist attacks ?, at least most probably with respect to a certain isolation in the sense of being regarded as „exotic“ (?) - leave Germany, and finally, he is said to have arrived in Africa, again[62], living there (more or less?) like an eremite (hermit). AMO tought in Halle (Germany) and Jena (Germany).
4.5 AMO and the „Ding an sich“ (noumenon)?
According to NTEPE[63], AMO (even) tought about the so called „Ding an sich“ before (e.g.) KANT tought about it.[64]
NTEPE[65] also points out the following aspects of AMO’s texts:
„Der Mann aus der Region des Golfes von Guinea dachte, dass der Mensch seine Weltanschauung und seine Werte durch die Interaktion mit seiner Umwelt konstruiert: das ist der Kerngedanke, der dem Kognitivismus, dem Konstruktivismus und dem Sozio-Konstruktivismus zugrunde liegt. [sic!] Der Kognitivismus, der Konstruktivismus und der Sozio-Konstruktivismus werden derzeit Jean William Fritz Piaget in der Pädagogik und in der Erziehungspsychologie zugeschrieben. Piaget starb aber im letzten Jahrhundert, im 20. Jahrhundert, wogegen Amo im 18. Jahrhundert wirkte und seine Seele im selben Jahrhundert aushauchte.“[66] [sic!]
Why are students – e.g. in Austria or Germany – in fact quite rarely tought about this aspects? Why, e.g. is AMO not even mentioned, at least by a footnote [sic!] in a script of philosophy, e.g. legal philosophy? Is AMO not „worth“ to be mentioned? [sic!] Is AMO „too exotic“[67] ? [sic!]
4.6 NTEP on AMO and implications?
Furthermore, NTEP states, in a general manner:
„Wie jede/jeder Gelehrte, die/der mit der geistigen Redlichkeit und Ehrlichkeit durchdrungen ist, heute konstatieren kann, wurden das Leben und die Arbeiten von Amo immer versteckt, verscharrt, vertuscht und heruntergespielt, sodass sich niemand der Tatsache bewusst werden konnte, dass er einen signifikanten Beitrag zum Zeitalter der Aufklärung geleistet hat und dass der „Intelligenzquotient“ und die Brillanz nichts mit der Hautfarbe zu tun haben.
Jeder brillante Schwarze, der durch seine Persönlichkeit, sein Potential, sein Talent, seine Tätigkeit und seine Wirkung die Vermutung von Darwin verfälscht/entkräftet, die Einteilung/Einstufung von Menschen aufgrund ihrer Hautfarbe, erstellt von Ernst Haeckel – der Wissenschaftler, der das Wort "Ökologie" prägte und der ein eifriger Bewunderer von Darwin und der direkte Anreger schlechthin der Rassentheorie des NSDAP war und bleibt--, jeder brillante Schwarze, der klipp und klar, deutlich, logisch, wissenschaftlich und kohärent dieses Geschwätz entlarvt, zieht sich die Verfolgung durch/ von Rassisten zu, welche eine panische Angst vor der Gleichheit zwischen und unter Menschen haben, weil sie ihre eigene Unfähigkeit unter den Teppich kehren und von derselben ablenken wollen.
Es ist erwähnenswert, dass der deutsche Wissenschaftler Ernst Haeckel schwarzen Menschen einen Rang über den der Affen verlieh; deshalb bezeichneten Hitler und viele Rassisten rund um den Globus schwarze Menschen als "Halbaffen".
Hervorragende und kompetente schwarze Gelehrte, die die Vorherrschaft von Europäern beanstandeten/anfechten und für Gleichheit eintreten, wurden bzw. werden oft geächtet. Deren Schriften wurden bzw. werden des Öfteren boykottiert und deren Gedanken wurden bzw. werden zeitweise gestohlen. Zur selben Zeit wurden bzw. werden schwarze Nieten regelmäßig mit einbezogen, sodass sie in die Annahme über Menschen, Rassen und Hautfarben von Haeckel passten/passen und diese bestätigten/bekräftigen. Cheikh Anta Diop erlebte diese Verbannung in Frankreich. Anton Wilhelm Amo ging durch dieselbe raue Situation in Deutschland, nachdem seine deutschen Gönner hingeschieden waren.
Die Wahl von Barack Hussein Obama durch die amerikanische Bevölkerung ins „Weiße Haus“ hat gerade ein für alle Mal diese „taktischen“ Maschen und die schnöden und unverschämten Lügen gegenüber Schwarzen widerlegt.
Also: sollte jemand einem wehmütigen Rassisten[68] begegnen, sollte man diesen wegen dessen Geisteskrankheit bemitleiden und demselben sofort einen guten Psychiater empfehlen. Dies würde dem professionellen Seelenklempner auch die Möglichkeit bieten, seinen Lebensunterhalt zu verdienen, indem er zeigt, wes Geistes Kind er ist.“[69]
4.7 AMO: unknown to KANT!?
Again, it has to be called very strange that KANT should not have known at least about the existence and the position of AMO, especially when it comes to the aspect that KANT read a lot. So: why did KANT not reflect on his „theory“ (his „theories“) on Afro-americans? Where they not worth to be thought on? Furthermore: Was it probably a sort of „game“ KANT played when speaking about what should be done to Afro-americans?
5 David HUME
5.1 „Enlightening“ David HUME at „WU WIEN“?
Interestingly, David HUME is refered to as „Scots avantgarde [sic!] in philosophy“[70] on a slide but there is not any information about his (strong) racist aspects which KANT [sic!] then quoted and presented as being correct and true. [sic!] Furthermore, there is not any information, that, after the – so called – age of „Enlightenment“ has been mentioned on a slide – there also were sad (and not only „glad“) aspects of in this era, also with respect to the – so called – „Scots avantgarde [sic!] in philosophy“. How might people with a minority background, with a not-white skin, with a Jewish background e.g., think and feel about this (in case they probably know about these aspects)? Why not any (at least short!) information in this context?
5.2 Gilles DELEUZE on HUME?
In a work of DELEUZE with the title „David Hume“ there is not any word to be found on such sad aspects as racist „thoughts“ of David HUME. Why is this so? Is it – also with respect to racist aspects in the twentieth century – not worth being mentioned? Why? Cui bono? And: should not especially scientists, especially philosophers, be (fact-based) critical about people presented to (some of) us in a (somewhat) „semi-divine“ manner? [sic!]
5.3 HAYEK and „unser weiser Führer“ David HUME?
When it comes to HAYEK, HAYEK[71] refers (in footnote 9 of page 9 of his work „Die Verfassung der Freiheit“[72]) to HUME (also) as „unser weiser Führer“[73] (our wise leader).
The following question might be asked in this context: Could this wording not be scrutinised? Inhowfar was David HUME – really – „weise“ (wise)? Especially: is this (de facto -) generalisation [sic!] of HAYEK correct?
[...]
[1] E.g. with (KANT’s concept) of the so called „Kategorischer Imperativ“ (categorial imperative).
[2] 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.
[3] See e.g. DER NEUE BROCKHAUS 1959: 63.
[4] 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.
[5] For instance in a book by HÖFFE (1990: 25).
[6] 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).
[7] See e.g, GADAMER 1992: 289 with respect to the phrase „der ganzen Entwicklung des spekulativen Idealismus von Fichte bis Hegel“.
[8] See e.g. GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE 2004: 104.
[9] 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.
[10] With respect to SCHELLING see e.g. GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE 2004: 108-110, calling SCHELLING an „idealistischer Denker“.
[11] 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!]
[12] 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.“
[13] 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.“
[14] 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?
[15] 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?
[16] 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).
[17] See e.g. PONGS 1976: 1010.
[18] 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.“
[19] 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).
[20] 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!]
[21] 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 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!]
[22] 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)?
[23] 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.)
[24] 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.)
[25] With respect to BERNHARD’s play „Immanuel Kant“ and Thomas BERNHARD see e.g. MEYERHOFER 1985: 71-74.
[26] 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.
[27] 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.
[28] 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 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)).
[29] 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?]) (?)).
[30] As (e.g.) PONGS (1989: 78) puts it: „Die Enzyklopädie 1751-72 wird die „Bibel [sic!] der Aufklärung“ genannt.“
[31] 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.
[32] 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.
[33] 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).
[34] I admit that the translation of „sachlich“ by „fact-bound“ need not be described as „too“ satisfactory (!).
[35] 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!)
[36] 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.
[37] 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.
[38] 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 stellen, hört man nicht“ – could one not ask, inhowfar this also is – generally – true with respect to students at universities (e.g.)? [sic!]
[39] 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.
[40] 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“.
[41] 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
[42] 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?
[43] HIMMELBAUER in KOORDINIERUNGSAUSSCHUSS FÜR CHRISTLICH-JÜDISCHE ZUSAM-MEN-ARBEIT 2009: 6.
[44] HIMMELBAUER in KOORDINIERUNGSAUSSCHUSS FÜR CHRISTLICH-JÜDISCHE ZUSAM-MENARBEIT 2009: 6.
[45] HIMMELBAUER in KOORDINIERUNGSAUSSCHUSS FÜR CHRISTLICH-JÜDISCHE ZUSAM-MENARBEIT 2009: 6.
[46] HIMMELBAUER in KOORDINIERUNGSAUSSCHUSS FÜR CHRISTLICH-JÜDISCHE ZUSAM-MENARBEIT 2009: 6.
[47] HIMMELBAUER in KOORDINIERUNGSAUSSCHUSS FÜR CHRISTLICH-JÜDISCHE ZUSAMMENAR-BEIT 2009: 6.
[48] GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE 2004: 185.
[49] 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).
[50] 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: […]“).
[51] See URIBE on the HP of BLACK EUROPEAN STUDIES (BEST) (http://www.best.uni-mainz.de/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=167 , „Juan Latino – afrikanischer Professor im Granada des 16. Jahrhundert[sc. s]“, date of retrieval 30.9.2009).
[52] See - with respect tot he three volumes of poems - e.g. WIRTH on the HP of BLACKPAST.ORG (http://www.blackpast.org/?q=gah/latino-juan-c-1518-c-1594, „Latino, Juan (c. 1518--c. 1594)“, date of retrieval 30.9.2009).
[53] See also the HP of WIKIPEDIA on Juan LATINO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Latino , search word „Juan Latino“, date of retrieval 1.10.2009).
[54] See a text of Prof Dr Scott W. WILLIAMS on the HP oft he UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO (http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/special/amo-anton.html , „ANTON-WILHELM AMO“, date of retrieval 3.10.2009).
[55] Correct: Disputatio (Latin!), thus the correct title being: Disputatio de jure Maurorum in Europa.
[56] See a text of Prof Dr Scott W. WILLIAMS on the HP oft he UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO (http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/special/amo-anton.html , „ANTON-WILHELM AMO“, date of retrieval 3.10.2009).
[57] See a text of Prof Dr Scott W. WILLIAMS on the HP oft he UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO (http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/special/amo-anton.html , „ANTON-WILHELM AMO“, date of retrieval 3.10.2009).
[58] LIUKKONEN and PERSONEN on KIRJASTO (http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/amo.htm, „Anton Wilhelm Rudolph Amo / Antonius Gvilielmus Amo, Afer of Axim (1703-c.1759)“, date of retrieval 3.10.2009) state about AMO’s second doctoral thesis: „In 1734 Amo published his second doctoral dissertation, De Humanae Mentis "Apatheia" (On the Absence of Sensation in the Human Mind), a critique of Descartes's dualism, the opposition between mind and body, which he found problematic. Amo did not reject the assumption that mind is a substance, but suggested, that there was inconsistency and confusion in Descartes' terms - how two fundamentally different substances can be in union. Taking an agnostic stand, Amo also argued, that "Although I do not know in what manner God and disembodied spirits understand themselves and their operations and external things, I do not think it probable that they do it through ideas." According to Amo, "it is the peculiarity of the human mind that it understands and acts through ideas, because it is very closely tied to the body."
[59] Such things happen in Vienna e.g. on the TU Wien, sometimes. Professors sometimes are muzzled, if they – based on facts – politely criticise a fact-bound expert opinion of one of their „colleagues“, as e.g. the newspaper DIE PRESSE sometimes pointed out (with respect to „past“ years).
[60] See a text of Prof Dr Scott W. WILLIAMS on the HP oft he UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO
(http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/special/amo-anton.html , „ANTON-WILHELM AMO“, date of retrieval 3.10.2009).
[61] AMO fell in love with a lecturer’s cousin, Anna Dorothea Gnüge. Later, GNÜGE married the prospective pastor LANGE. This couple caused a lot of problems for AMO. In 1746, they published a satirical poem about a “hairy, smart-alecky goatface” trying to kiss a girl. It was obvious for everyone that their mockery aimed at AMO. Furthermore, these two people also published an article in the so called “Wöchentliche Hallische Anzeigen” from October 1747 describing “Mr. Amo, an erudite moor, courting a beautiful brunette”.
[62] See e.g. NTEP on the HP of AFRIKANET about AMO (http://www.afrikanet.info/menu/kids-jugend/datum/2009/01/21/anton-wilhelm-amo-die-schwarze-lichtgestalt-der-aufklaerung/?type=98&cHash=83beddc59f, date of retrieval 29.9.2009).
[63] NTEPE on the HP of AFRIKANET (http://www.afrikanet.info/menu/kids-jugend/datum/2009/01/21/anton-wilhelm-amo-die-schwarze-lichtgestalt-der-aufklaerung/?type=98&cHash=83beddc59f, date of retrieval 29.9.2009).
[64] NTEPE on the HP of AFRIKANET (http://www.afrikanet.info/menu/kids-jugend/datum/2009/01/21/anton-wilhelm-amo-die-schwarze-lichtgestalt-der-aufklaerung/?type=98&cHash=83beddc59f, date of retrieval 29.9.2009).
[65] NTEPE on the HP of AFRIKANET (http://www.afrikanet.info/menu/kids-jugend/datum/2009/01/21/ anton-wilhelm-amo-die-schwarze-lichtgestalt-der-aufklaerung/?type=98&cHash=83beddc59f, date of retrieval 29.9.2009).
[66] NTEPE on the HP of AFRIKANET (http://www.afrikanet.info/menu/kids-jugend/datum/2009/01/21/ anton-wilhelm-amo-die-schwarze-lichtgestalt-der-aufklaerung/?type=98&cHash=83beddc59f, date of retrieval 29.9.2009).
[67] It is to be stated very [sic!] clearly that even if AMO were [sic!], in a certain „sense“, exotic: what, please, would that – on a serious and scientific, fact-bound and critical basis – mean with respect to be quoted or not quoted ? [sic!] (The so called „exotic“ „argument“ is an „argument“ also to be voiced with respect to people the hegemonial, excluding so called „scientific“ „community“ tends to „use“ with respect to „heretic“ thoughts which often cause the so called „scientific“ „community“ to do one, not seldomly regarded as „unsympathetic“ „thing“: i.e. to (re-)think and/or „think one’s own ideas over“ – not seldomly a „sort“ of „death sentence“ to different but sensible thoughts and new aspects.) [sic!]
[68] These words of NTEP remind me of the words of Hon-Prof Dipl-Ing. DDDr. Peter LANDESMANN, who – in a private message – stated very clearly to me (in German) that antisemitism is an illness. - The same is to be said about (other forms of) racism: racism is an illness.
[69] NTEP on the HP of AFRIKANET (http://www.afrikanet.info/menu/kids-jugend/datum/2009/01/21/anton-wilhelm-amo-die-schwarze-lichtgestalt-der-aufklaerung/?type=98&cHash=83beddc59f , date of retrieval 29.9.2009).
[70] VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINSTRATION
(http://www.wu.ac.at/ebc/downloads/unit_wales_scotland_08.pdf, „Unit_Wales_Scotland_08.pdf“, date of retrieval 19.9.2009).
[71] HAYEK in BOSCH/VEIT 2005: 9.
[72] HAYEK in BOSCH/VEIT 2005: 9.
[73] HAYEK in BOSCH/VEIT 2005: 9.