I don't imagine in his totality, but I am reading Kants notes on anthropology and he seems surprisingly good in the way he describes culture-making the biological talent for moral agency.
Did he get much else right, or was this just a fluke as everyone held this to be self evident
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
2
LGBTQIAIDS on scored.co
1 year ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
No. Believed in unilinear progress *a la* Hegel and Marx and essentially prefigured some of their key views. Tied in with that was republicanization: as all countries progressed, they would become republics. The Categorical Imperative very poorly resonates with me as an ethical rule.
As for his philosophy with no ethical implications, such as Transcendental Idealism, I don't have much of an opinion on it. I tend to agree with indirect realism, which seems part and parcel of Transcendental Idealism. But that is the same with many philosophers: I have few agreements and many disagreements, making my own philosophy a patchwork. I regard Leibniz, whose philosophy Kant's supplanted, as more agreeable, and so I regard Kant's ascension as generally a backwards step. Leibniz was an intellectual giant compared to Kant: inventor, mathematician, philosopher.
I don't think of Kant as an idealist *a la* Berkeley. It seems to be a common misunderstanding, Kant as 'Prussian Berkeley'. Kant doesn't claim that everything is ideal or mental. But he does seem to claim that everything *for us* is ideal or mental; that the thing-in-itself is unknowable.
I imagine that 'Far-Right' followers of his are only attracted by his 'racist' anti-groid and anti-yid statements. He offers little else to the Right, and was considered a Left-Radical in his day. The other comments mentioned Nietzsche: I regard him as another character with whom I have few sympathies.
Kant was a product of his times and his views on Republics is the result. For hundreds of years in Europe, monarchies were slowly giving way to more distributed rule ala the Magna Carta, parliaments (initially temporary insitutions to resolve certain issues), etc. A few hundred years of this slow progression existed before Kant, often with decades of setback in a country before proceeding again. Distributed rule therefore likely seemed inevitable to him because no matter how long a monarchy reestablished power, it inevitably gave way again.
As for his philosophy with no ethical implications, such as Transcendental Idealism, I don't have much of an opinion on it. I tend to agree with indirect realism, which seems part and parcel of Transcendental Idealism. But that is the same with many philosophers: I have few agreements and many disagreements, making my own philosophy a patchwork. I regard Leibniz, whose philosophy Kant's supplanted, as more agreeable, and so I regard Kant's ascension as generally a backwards step. Leibniz was an intellectual giant compared to Kant: inventor, mathematician, philosopher.
I don't think of Kant as an idealist *a la* Berkeley. It seems to be a common misunderstanding, Kant as 'Prussian Berkeley'. Kant doesn't claim that everything is ideal or mental. But he does seem to claim that everything *for us* is ideal or mental; that the thing-in-itself is unknowable.
I imagine that 'Far-Right' followers of his are only attracted by his 'racist' anti-groid and anti-yid statements. He offers little else to the Right, and was considered a Left-Radical in his day. The other comments mentioned Nietzsche: I regard him as another character with whom I have few sympathies.