Those interested in an interesting and (!) scientific text about Immanuel KANT, and texts rarely ever mentioned, and: if mentioned then mostly often in a quite positive way, are to be satisfied by this fact-bound and critical text.
This text is also written upon the wish to introduce readers not specialised in so called KANTian "ethics" to a (partly very shocking), "down-to-earth" KANT insofar as KANT is shown here with texts full of prejudices, insulting statements, (mere) assumptions, many of them already often said to be unscientific even in his days - those interested in reading not another "Kant on Management", "Kant and human rights", "KANTian ethics", "KANT in {so called} legal ethics" script, or (text-)book are most probably astonished by the multitude of scientific voices in fact just "praising", in fact often only (semi-)"beatifying" Immanuel KANT; this text provides a huge amount of discussions especially concerning the "way", the "mode", the "narrative" which "we" are (mostly) allowed (!) to "know" what KANT (only?) stands for ("human rights; categorial imperative; deontological ethics").
Furthermore this texts wishes to raise a multitude of critical questions with respect to the way KANT wrote about women, about e.g. Afro-europeans (or e.g. Afro-americans), and it also tries to point out KANT's contemporary Prof Dr Anton Wilhelm AMO's work, his success in a climate of prejudices, or racist attacks, of exclusion.
But it is not only KANT, but also HEGEL, FICHTE, HUME, ROUSSEAU, VOLTAIRE and others which are to be observed with respect to totalitarian or racist texts.
Furthermore, according to the Holocaust and the NS-terror, we are also to focus on the "way" e.g. some scientists "present" influencial former NS-members in the field of so called legal ethics, legal philosophy, "the" German legal science, focussing on a recent text in the FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG, a famous periodical often said to be a "quality newspaper".
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 So called „ethics“ versus „morals“
3.1 Definition of „ethics“
3.2 „Definition“ of „ethics“ by GMEINER?
3.3 „Definition“ of „Ethik“ by EDELBACHER?
3.4 „Definition“ of „Moral“ by NOLL?
3.5 „Ethics“ as distinguished from „morals“
4 („Holy“?) Bartolomé DE LAS CASAS
4.1 Who was DE LAS CASAS?
4.2 DE LAS CASAS and human rights „development“!?
5 Juan LATINO (Juan DE SESA)
5.1 Who was Juan LATINO ?
5.2 LATINO: unknown to KANT?!
6 Anton Wilhelm AMO
6.1 Who was Anton Wilhelm AMO?
6.2 What to learn from Anton Wilhelm AMO?
6.3 Anton Wilhelm AMO and „universities“ today?
6.4 Anton Wilhelm AMO and his emigration?
6.5 AMO and the „Ding an sich“ (noumenon)?
6.6 NTEP on AMO and implications?
6.7 AMO: unknown to KANT!?
7 David HUME
7.1 „Enlightening“ David HUME at „WU WIEN“?
7.2 Gilles DELEUZE on HUME?
7.3 HAYEK and „unser weiser Führer“ David HUME?
7.4 DAIRE and MOLINARI on HUME?
7.5 Gerhard STREMINGER on HUME?
7.6 DER NEUE BROCKHAUS (1959) on HUME?
8 Race/“Rasse“; „Rassengesetze“; Racism/“Rassismus“
8.1 Definition of „Rasse“ with BROCKHAUS?
8.2 Definition of „Races of men“ by SHAPIRO/PARSONS?
8.3 Definition of „Rasse“ with BROCKHAUS?
8.4 Definition of „Rassismus“ with BROCKHAUS?
8.5 Definition of „Rassismus“ with KÖBLER
9 KANT on „ethics“, „aesthetics“, and „race“
9.1 KANT on Africo-American people anno 1764 (1766)?
9.2 KANT on „Frauenzimmer“ (women) anno 1766 (1764)?
9.3 Again: KANT on Afro-americans anno 1766 (1764)?
9.4 KLEIN on KANT’s „scharfe Beobachtungsgabe“?
9.5 Wolbert G. C. SMIDT on KANTs „Erhabenes“?
9.6 Patrick FRIERSON on KANTs „Erhabenes“?
9.7 Monika FIRLA on KANT and ‚Zeitgeist‘-fiction?
9.8 GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE on KANT?
9.9 VOLPI/NIDA-RÜMELIN on KANT?
9.10 PONGS (1976) on KANT?
9.11 KLOPFER (2008) on KANT and „Pietismus“!?
9.12 KANT, Afro-americans and „phlogiston“ anno 1785?
9.13 (Sir) Isaiah BERLIN on KANT?
9.14 BERLIN on KANT‘s „scharfer und äußerst klarer Verstand“?
9.15 KANT: „Meister der Architektonik der Vernunft“(GADAMER)?
9.16 WIMMER on KANT and Wilhelm Anton AMO?
9.17 Helmut FUCHS on KANT?
9.18 Christof MÜLLER on KANT?
9.19 Nikolaus FRANKE on KANT?
9.20 Anna GAMPER on KANT ?
9.21 Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT?
9.22 PERTHOLD/SPITZER/WALLNER on KANT?
9.23 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT?
9.24 Gerhard LUF on KANT?
9.25 Again: Gerhard LUF on KANT?
9.26 Alexander SOMEK on KANT, HEGEL and ROUSSEAU?
9.27 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on KANT?
9.28 Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT?
9.29 PERTHOLD/SPITZER/WALLNER on KANT?
9.30 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT?
9.31 Alexander SOMEK on KANT, HEGEL and ROUSSEAU?
9.32 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on KANT?
9.33 Hermann GLOCKNER on KANT?
9.34 GLOCKNER: KANT as „Lehrer der Humanität“?
9.35 KANDLHOFER in KOHL/OFNER/KARNER/HALPFER on KANT?
9.36 GLOCKNER and a „jugendlich-humane“ KANT?
10 KANT on „Frauenzimmer“ (women)
10.1 In the wake of a „mir san mir“-mentality?
10.2 Therese Frey STEFFEN on KANT?
10.3 Again: KANT on „Frauenzimmer“ (women) anno 1766?
10.4 Again: Therese Frey STEFFEN on KANT?
11 HEGEL
11.1 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on HEGEL?
11.2 COOTER/ULEN on HEGEL?
11.3 Franz Martin WIMMER on HEGEL?
12 Karl LARENZ and the NS-regime
12.1 Karl LARENZ on KANT?
12.2 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on LARENZ?
12.3 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on LARENZ?
12.4 Thomas HOEREN on „Ur-Vater“ LARENZ?
12.5 „High quality“ ? - FAZ, HOEREN, and „Ur-Vater“ LARENZ?
13 Conclusion and „Outlook“?
Research Objectives & Topics
This work provides a critical and fact-based philosophical, historical, and intercultural analysis of the prevailing presentation of influential Western thinkers, particularly Immanuel Kant, within contemporary academic education. It challenges the common "white-washing" of historical figures who, despite being revered as universal moral authorities, often held and disseminated racist, misogynistic, and otherwise discriminatory views that are frequently omitted from ethics lectures and introductory legal studies.
- Critical examination of the "semi-divine" status of philosophers like Kant, Hegel, and Hume in academia.
- Analysis of the intersection between Enlightenment philosophy and colonial/racist ideologies.
- Highlighting the exclusion of non-European scholars like Anton Wilhelm Amo and Juan Latino from canonical philosophical discourse.
- Evaluation of the educational responsibility of universities in presenting a comprehensive and truthful account of philosophical texts.
- Critique of the "white-washing" practices in current legal and business ethics curricula.
Excerpt from the Book
9.1 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: This chapter highlights the tendency of universities to glorify "semi-divine" thinkers while omitting their racist or exclusionary views, arguing for a more critical approach in teaching.
2 „Cultural“ studies, „ethics“, and KANT!?: The section explores how prominent thinkers like Kant, Hegel, and Fichte are presented in academia and introduces the problematic "Tenor" of how these figures are typically treated.
3 So called „ethics“ versus „morals“: It examines definitions of ethics and morals through various academic authors, questioning the lack of clarity in contemporary educational definitions.
4 („Holy“?) Bartolomé DE LAS CASAS: The chapter investigates the historical role of Bartolomé de las Casas, questioning his status as a humanitarian in light of his colonial and slavery-related justifications.
5 Juan LATINO (Juan DE SESA): It introduces the figure of Juan Latino, an overlooked 16th-century African scholar, and questions why such figures remain unknown to Kant and the traditional academic canon.
6 Anton Wilhelm AMO: This section details the life and work of Anton Wilhelm Amo, emphasizing his intellectual achievements despite racial prejudice, and critiques his exclusion from university history.
7 David HUME: The chapter analyzes the "enlightened" presentation of David Hume, criticizing the omission of his racist sentiments in contemporary academic settings.
8 Race/“Rasse“; „Rassengesetze“; Racism/“Rassismus“: It provides an analysis of terminologies related to race and racism through encyclopedia definitions and critiques their contextual application.
9 KANT on „ethics“, „aesthetics“, and „race“: A comprehensive review of Kant’s racist and misogynistic writings, analyzing how various contemporary scholars interpret, gloss over, or ignore these dark aspects.
10 KANT on „Frauenzimmer“ (women): This chapter focuses specifically on Kant's sexist views on women and the critique of these views by scholars like Therese Frey Steffen.
11 HEGEL: The section critiques the treatment of Hegel in law and economics literature, specifically regarding his negative views and their influence on later historical events.
12 Karl LARENZ and the NS-regime: It addresses the controversial role of legal scholar Karl Larenz during the Nazi era and critiques his continued status as a celebrated "founding father" of German law.
13 Conclusion and „Outlook“?: The final chapter summarizes the necessity for a more critical, transparent, and ethically grounded approach to teaching philosophy, history, and law at modern universities.
Keywords
Immanuel Kant, Ethics, Racism, Enlightenment, Academia, Legal Philosophy, Anton Wilhelm Amo, Human Rights, White-washing, Critical Thinking, Moral, Colonialism, Georg Hegel, David Hume, Karl Larenz.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental objective of this work?
The work aims to provide a serious, fact-bound, and critical analysis of how influential Western philosophers are presented in university curricula, specifically exposing the omission of their racist and discriminatory views.
What are the primary thematic fields covered in the book?
The book covers legal philosophy, ethics, the history of the Enlightenment, colonial history, the critical examination of institutional "white-washing," and the biographies of excluded figures like Anton Wilhelm Amo.
What is the central research question?
The research questions the integrity of presenting historical philosophers like Kant and Hegel as "semi-divine" role models while simultaneously ignoring their documented racist, sexist, and insulting writings.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The author employs a critical, fact-based textual analysis, examining historical documents, university curricula, and modern scholarly literature to reveal discrepancies between the "glorified" public image of these philosophers and their actual writings.
What is treated in the main body of the work?
The main body focuses on a detailed deconstruction of specific thinkers (Kant, Hegel, Hume, de las Casas) and contemporary scholars who write about them, documenting evidence of racism and the systemic failure of universities to address these topics.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key concepts include institutional white-washing, critical philosophical inquiry, moral integrity, academic exclusion, and the re-evaluation of the Enlightenment legacy regarding human rights and racism.
How does the book analyze Kant's views on "universal" human rights?
The author contrasts Kant's theoretical advocacy for "universal" human rights with his specific, disparaging texts concerning Afro-American and Jewish individuals, arguing that these views are diametrically opposed and rarely addressed together in lectures.
What is the author’s stance on the professional integrity of legal scholars in Vienna?
The author expresses significant disappointment and sadness regarding the fact that prominent legal scholars and university instructors often omit critical aspects of historical thinkers, calling for a more honest and critical pedagogical approach.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Mag. Georg Schilling (Autor:in), 2009, „Ich kenne Kant…“? - So called legal and business „ethics“ referring to Kant et al. , München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/138079
