At universities, students are often presented (almost) „semi-divine“ personalities, be it KANT, be it HEGEL, be it HUME, be it other important, influencial thinkers, especially in the field of - so called - „ethics“ , be it e.g. so called „management ethics“, be it so called „legal ethics“. Some of these students are simply one thing: fed up with the way of in fact almost „gloryfying“ (!) these men. It remains the job of at least some people to at least partially critically (re-)think what and how things are presented to students. 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, Afro-americans, 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, 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 a corresponding member of the AUSTRIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Prof Dr Gerhard LUF, a man also educated and gifted in arts, of huge knowledge also in literature, a man also known for his opinion on the former „Auwald-Besetzung“ in the KREISKY-era and its conflicts, a personality also known for his favour of football, and: the development of (universal?) human rights? Is it "bad" to write at least one word in e.g. a script, thus not directing into a positive thinking of e.g. KANT stood for? Why not? Are – in fact: rather simply/clearly presented answers always „good“ answers? 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 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? Does this enhance democracy in Austria ?
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 „Cultural“ studies, „ethics“, and KANT!?
2.1 Introduction with BERNHARD, KEHLMANN, LEVINAS et al?
2.2 Frank STERN, „PINK“, „Advanced Chemistry“?
2.3 Prof Dr Frank STERN, KANT, and Orhan Küçükyılmaz?
2.4 „Tenor(s)“ of the study
3 („Holy“?) Bartolomé DE LAS CASAS
3.1 Who was DE LAS CASAS?
3.2 DE LAS CASAS and human rights „development“!?
4 Juan LATINO (Juan DE SESA)
4.1 Who was Juan LATINO ?
4.2 LATINO: unknown to KANT?!
5 Anton Wilhelm AMO
5.1 Who was Anton Wilhelm AMO?
5.2 What to learn from Anton Wilhelm AMO?
5.3 Anton Wilhelm AMO and „universities“ today?
5.4 Anton Wilhelm AMO and his emigration?
5.5 AMO and the „Ding an sich“ (noumenon)?
5.6 NTEP on AMO and implications?
5.7 AMO: unknown to KANT!?
6 David HUME
6.1 „Enlightening“ David HUME at „WU WIEN“?
6.2 Gilles DELEUZE on HUME?
6.3 HAYEK and „unser weiser Führer“ David HUME?
6.4 DAIRE and MOLINARI on HUME?
6.5 Gerhard STREMINGER on HUME?
6.6 DER NEUE BROCKHAUS (1959) on HUME?
7 Race/“Rasse“; „Rassengesetze“; Racism/“Rassismus“
7.1 Definition of „Rasse“ with BROCKHAUS?
7.2 Definition of „Races of men“ by SHAPIRO/PARSONS?
7.3 Definition of „Rasse“ with BROCKHAUS?
7.4 Definition of „Rassismus“ with BROCKHAUS?
8 KANT on „ethics“, „aesthetics“, and „race“
8.1 KANT on Africo-American people anno 1764 (1766)?
8.2 KANT on „Frauenzimmer“ (women) anno 1766 (1764)?
8.3 Again: KANT on Afro-americans anno 1766 (1764)?
8.4 KLEIN on KANT’s „scharfe Beobachtungsgabe“?
8.5 Wolbert G. C. SMIDT on KANTs „Erhabenes“?
8.6 Patrick FRIERSON on KANTs „Erhabenes“?
8.7 Monika FIRLA on KANT and ‚Zeitgeist‘-fiction?
8.8 GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE on KANT?
8.9 VOLPI/NIDA-RÜMELIN on KANT?
8.10 PONGS (1976) on KANT?
8.11 KLOPFER (2008) on KANT and „Pietismus“!?
8.12 KANT, Afro-americans and „phlogiston“ anno 1785?
8.13 (Sir) Isaiah BERLIN on KANT?
8.14 BERLIN on KANT‘s „scharfer und äußerst klarer Verstand“?
8.15 KANT: „Meister der Architektonik der Vernunft“(GADAMER)?
8.16 WIMMER on KANT and Wilhelm Anton AMO?
8.17 Helmut FUCHS on KANT?
8.18 Christof MÜLLER on KANT?
8.19 Nikolaus FRANKE on KANT?
8.20 Anna GAMPER on KANT ?
8.21 Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT?
8.22 PERTHOLD/SPITZER/WALLNER on KANT?
8.23 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT?
8.24 Gerhard LUF on KANT?
8.25 Again: Gerhard LUF on KANT?
8.26 Alexander SOMEK on KANT, HEGEL and ROUSSEAU?
8.27 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on KANT?
8.28 Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT?
8.29 PERTHOLD/SPITZER/WALLNER on KANT?
8.30 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT?
8.31 Alexander SOMEK on KANT, HEGEL and ROUSSEAU?
8.32 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on KANT?
9 KANT on „Frauenzimmer“ (women)
9.1 In the wake of a „mir san mir“-mentality?
9.2 Therese Frey STEFFEN on KANT?
9.3 Again: KANT on „Frauenzimmer“ (women) anno 1766 ?
9.4 Again: Therese Frey STEFFEN on KANT?
10 HEGEL
10.1 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on HEGEL?
10.2 COOTER/ULEN on HEGEL?
10.3 Franz Martin WIMMER on HEGEL?
11 Karl LARENZ and the NS-regime
11.1 Karl LARENZ on KANT?
11.2 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on LARENZ?
11.3 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on LARENZ?
11.4 Thomas HOEREN on „Ur-Vater“ LARENZ?
11.5 „High quality“ ? - FAZ, HOEREN, and „Ur-Vater“ LARENZ?
12 Conclusion and „Outlook“?
13 Bibliography
Objectives and Research Themes
The work aims to provide a critical, fact-based, and scientific analysis of how influential philosophers, particularly Immanuel Kant, are presented in contemporary academic and legal discourse. It questions the tendency to "white-wash" or glorify these figures while ignoring their problematic, racist, or misogynistic views, and advocates for a more inclusive and critical approach to teaching philosophy and legal ethics in universities.
- Critical evaluation of the glorification of philosophers like Kant, Hegel, and Hume in academic teaching.
- Examination of neglected historical figures, such as Anton Wilhelm Amo and Juan Latino.
- Analysis of the relationship between 18th-century philosophy and colonialist or racist ideologies.
- Critique of the presentation of legal ethics at contemporary Austrian universities.
Excerpt from the Book
1 Introduction
At universities, students are often presented (almost) „semi-divine“ personalities, be it KANT, be it HEGEL, be it HUME, be it other important, influencial thinkers, especially in the field of - so called - „ethics“, 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, 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, nothwithstanding racial, (partially) hatred-filled, boastful, texts, spoken and unspoken words.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter highlights the critical need to challenge the uncritical glorification of major philosophers in academic ethics courses and introduces the author's intent to re-evaluate their work in a broader context.
2 „Cultural“ studies, „ethics“, and KANT!?: Discusses the way major thinkers are presented in academia and addresses the lack of critical engagement with their historical and colonial contexts.
3 („Holy“?) Bartolomé DE LAS CASAS: Examines the legacy of Las Casas and questions his role in the development of human rights given his involvement in colonial practices.
4 Juan LATINO (Juan DE SESA): Introduces the life and work of Juan Latino, an often overlooked black scholar of the European Renaissance, and contrasts his exclusion from canonical studies with Kant's biases.
5 Anton Wilhelm AMO: Focuses on the life and philosophical contributions of Anton Wilhelm Amo, emphasizing the importance of his critical approach to intellectual dishonesty and prejudice.
6 David HUME: Analyzes the presentation of David Hume in academic settings and critiques the silence surrounding his racist writings.
7 Race/“Rasse“; „Rassengesetze“; Racism/“Rassismus“: Provides definitions and critical context for the terminology surrounding race and racism as used in philosophical and historical discourse.
8 KANT on „ethics“, „aesthetics“, and „race“: A comprehensive critical examination of Kant's writings on race, women, and his general influence on legal philosophy, challenging his "semi-divine" status.
9 KANT on „Frauenzimmer“ (women): Explores Kant's derogatory views on women and addresses the lack of academic discussion regarding these misogynistic texts.
10 HEGEL: Examines Hegel's political and legal philosophy, specifically addressing his negative stances and the lack of critical distance in his teaching.
11 Karl LARENZ and the NS-regime: Discusses the problematic history of legal scholars like Karl Larenz during the Nazi era and the persistent failure to adequately address this past in modern legal education.
12 Conclusion and „Outlook“?: Summarizes the need for a more critical, transparent, and ethically honest approach to teaching history, law, and philosophy in modern universities.
Keywords
Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, David Hume, Anton Wilhelm Amo, Juan Latino, Legal Philosophy, Ethics, Racism, Colonialism, Enlightenment, University Education, Human Rights, Critical Pedagogy, Bartolomé de las Casas, Karl Larenz.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this work?
The work argues that contemporary academic teaching, particularly in ethics and law, uncritically glorifies major philosophers like Kant and Hegel, often ignoring their racist and misogynistic views.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The themes include the critique of "white-washing" philosophical history, the role of overlooked thinkers like Anton Wilhelm Amo, the connection between 18th-century philosophy and colonial ideology, and the state of ethical education in Austrian legal faculties.
What is the primary goal of the author?
The primary goal is to advocate for a more fact-based, critical, and comprehensive approach to teaching philosophy that acknowledges the "dark sides" and prejudices of historically canonized thinkers.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The author utilizes a critical, historical, and interdisciplinary analysis, focusing on primary source texts of philosophers alongside critiques from contemporary academic literature.
What does the main body of the work address?
The main body systematically reviews specific philosophers (Kant, Hegel, Hume, etc.) and analyzes how their problematic texts are omitted from academic curricula in favor of a sanitized, positive narrative.
Which keywords characterize this book?
The work is characterized by terms such as critical ethics, historical accountability, anti-racism, academic reform, and the re-evaluation of the Enlightenment canon.
Why does the author specifically focus on Immanuel Kant?
Kant is the central focus because he is widely revered as the "Copernicus of philosophy" and a proponent of human rights, which makes the explicit racism and misogyny in his lesser-known writings particularly contradictory and necessary to address.
What is the significance of including Anton Wilhelm Amo?
Amo represents the excluded perspectives of the 18th century. By highlighting his success as a black professor in Germany, the author critiques the systemic prejudices present in the contemporary academic canon.
- Quote paper
- Mag. Georg Schilling (Author), 2009, Strategic challenges for Austrian universities with a special emphasis on Vienna 2010 AD, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/137763
