It is also difficult to make sense of Kant denying the right of revolution, yet expressing sympathy for the American and (up to a point) French revolutionists and articulating pro-individualist political principles.
A possible explanation for all of this is that Kant started out believing that individuals needed liberty in order to be mor…
It is also difficult to make sense of Kant denying the right of revolution, yet expressing sympathy for the American and (up to a point) French revolutionists and articulating pro-individualist political principles.
A possible explanation for all of this is that Kant started out believing that individuals needed liberty in order to be moral (even if in his system that involved a pursuit of suffering instead of a pursuit of happiness), and secretly sympathized with the American Revolution and, in the early stages, the French Revolution for that reason. However, he couldn't come out and say that openly given the repressive nature of the Prussian regime he lived under.
Once the French Revolution degenerated into a Reign of Terror and the heads started to roll, Kant started compromising his political views. Instead of attacking the illiberal deviations of the Jacobins, he began subordinating the value of defending individual liberty to conservative anti-revolutionary/anti-tyrannicidal values. He could openly express such compromised views in Prussia, which is what then made it into his later, more comprehensive works on ethics and political philosophy.
What made it so dangerous to be a philosopher in 18th century Prussia was that the Lutheran state church had a fanatically anti-reason Pietist faction that felt itself threatened by Enlightenment philosophy. Even worse, the absolutist king/warlord who ruled Prussia through much of the 18th century, Friedrich II, dabbled in Enlightenment philosophy himself (writing a three volume collection of philosophically-oriented odes on various topics in French) and was even flattered by Voltaire as being a philosopher-king. Publicly contradicting either the King or the Church on philosophical fundamentals could get you into big trouble.
Back when Friedrich II was just a Crown Prince, shortly before Kant was born, a follower of Liebniz's Rationalism, Christian Wolff, was forced into exile because he imbibed too strongly in French ideas about materialism and atheism and came under attack by the Pietists. While Friedrich II himself was more tolerant of some Enlightenment ideas, even he was careful not to antagonize Lutherans. On the other hand, the King wasn't shy about unleashing his censors against any ideas that offended him. Kant's policy, as stated in a letter to one of his friends, was to remain silent about potentially troublesome beliefs rather than express ideas he didn't believe.
These factors undoubtedly had a major impact on keeping Prussia an intellectual backwater during Kant's lifetime, and also on filtering out any philosophical innovations that weren't compromised by faith-mongering and by power-worship.
Im suspicious of historical claims that reject the basic role of ideas for political events. Censorship is a problem, of course, but a philosopher, especially those who specialize in fundamentals, like Kant, can express their ideas in ways not obvious to censors but underrstandable to competent readers. I dont recall any history of philosophy claiming that censorship was a problem in 2600 or so years of the discussion of political philosophy. Even Aristotle, who fled Athens to escape political enemies who might have killed him, has never been accused to altering his political ideas.
But historians do have Kant's correspondence, so we know that he reacted specifically to the Reign of Terror as described above. Weak-minded people sometimes do start compromising their principles in response to traumatic events; I saw a similar pattern play out among some people I know with the 9/11 attacks.
Kants didn't apply his subjective mind and selflessness to the reality-based, rational individualist Enlightenment. He contradicted his fundamentals in praising it, whether from failure to understand it, fear of Germany's severe censorship or fear of the concrete effects of his philosophy.
I think therres something in what you say but philosophy, a persons widest view of realityy and the way he uses his mind guides life more than any other cause.
Yes, but what if one's philosophy is flawed and not providing a wide view of reality, and is therefore not a reliable guide for resolving contradictions and rooting out errors among less fundamental beliefs as they become apparent?
For irrationalists detached from reality, the net result may be that their errors and contradictions only grow worse. It is their arsenal of rationalizations, not their context of knowledge, that expands in light of new experiences. It's not that the flawed fundamentals aren't an important causal factor, but an event that triggers a fresh set of evasions by an out-of-focus mind counts as a causal factor too.
Yes, philosophy is the basic cause of human action. But there are many non-basic causes. Yes, man needs a guide to the mind. Its mans tool for life. In the words of friends from the 60s, ya gotta get your shit together. See Ayn Rands philosophy of Objectivism for a concrete-based rational guide for your mind for your life. Her Atlas Shrugged is a good start
It is also difficult to make sense of Kant denying the right of revolution, yet expressing sympathy for the American and (up to a point) French revolutionists and articulating pro-individualist political principles.
A possible explanation for all of this is that Kant started out believing that individuals needed liberty in order to be moral (even if in his system that involved a pursuit of suffering instead of a pursuit of happiness), and secretly sympathized with the American Revolution and, in the early stages, the French Revolution for that reason. However, he couldn't come out and say that openly given the repressive nature of the Prussian regime he lived under.
Once the French Revolution degenerated into a Reign of Terror and the heads started to roll, Kant started compromising his political views. Instead of attacking the illiberal deviations of the Jacobins, he began subordinating the value of defending individual liberty to conservative anti-revolutionary/anti-tyrannicidal values. He could openly express such compromised views in Prussia, which is what then made it into his later, more comprehensive works on ethics and political philosophy.
What made it so dangerous to be a philosopher in 18th century Prussia was that the Lutheran state church had a fanatically anti-reason Pietist faction that felt itself threatened by Enlightenment philosophy. Even worse, the absolutist king/warlord who ruled Prussia through much of the 18th century, Friedrich II, dabbled in Enlightenment philosophy himself (writing a three volume collection of philosophically-oriented odes on various topics in French) and was even flattered by Voltaire as being a philosopher-king. Publicly contradicting either the King or the Church on philosophical fundamentals could get you into big trouble.
Back when Friedrich II was just a Crown Prince, shortly before Kant was born, a follower of Liebniz's Rationalism, Christian Wolff, was forced into exile because he imbibed too strongly in French ideas about materialism and atheism and came under attack by the Pietists. While Friedrich II himself was more tolerant of some Enlightenment ideas, even he was careful not to antagonize Lutherans. On the other hand, the King wasn't shy about unleashing his censors against any ideas that offended him. Kant's policy, as stated in a letter to one of his friends, was to remain silent about potentially troublesome beliefs rather than express ideas he didn't believe.
These factors undoubtedly had a major impact on keeping Prussia an intellectual backwater during Kant's lifetime, and also on filtering out any philosophical innovations that weren't compromised by faith-mongering and by power-worship.
Im suspicious of historical claims that reject the basic role of ideas for political events. Censorship is a problem, of course, but a philosopher, especially those who specialize in fundamentals, like Kant, can express their ideas in ways not obvious to censors but underrstandable to competent readers. I dont recall any history of philosophy claiming that censorship was a problem in 2600 or so years of the discussion of political philosophy. Even Aristotle, who fled Athens to escape political enemies who might have killed him, has never been accused to altering his political ideas.
But historians do have Kant's correspondence, so we know that he reacted specifically to the Reign of Terror as described above. Weak-minded people sometimes do start compromising their principles in response to traumatic events; I saw a similar pattern play out among some people I know with the 9/11 attacks.
Kants didn't apply his subjective mind and selflessness to the reality-based, rational individualist Enlightenment. He contradicted his fundamentals in praising it, whether from failure to understand it, fear of Germany's severe censorship or fear of the concrete effects of his philosophy.
I think therres something in what you say but philosophy, a persons widest view of realityy and the way he uses his mind guides life more than any other cause.
Yes, but what if one's philosophy is flawed and not providing a wide view of reality, and is therefore not a reliable guide for resolving contradictions and rooting out errors among less fundamental beliefs as they become apparent?
For irrationalists detached from reality, the net result may be that their errors and contradictions only grow worse. It is their arsenal of rationalizations, not their context of knowledge, that expands in light of new experiences. It's not that the flawed fundamentals aren't an important causal factor, but an event that triggers a fresh set of evasions by an out-of-focus mind counts as a causal factor too.
Yes, philosophy is the basic cause of human action. But there are many non-basic causes. Yes, man needs a guide to the mind. Its mans tool for life. In the words of friends from the 60s, ya gotta get your shit together. See Ayn Rands philosophy of Objectivism for a concrete-based rational guide for your mind for your life. Her Atlas Shrugged is a good start