Afleveringen
-
While religion is practical, theology is theoretical: A person's theology is the sum of the statements on God he considers to be true. These statements however theology can take from revelation or from reason. And here arises the conflict between the theological and the philosophical faculty on the way through which to gain cognition of God.
Quote: 0:08
The philosophy of religion is the crowning conclusion of Kant's philosophy: 0:29
The contemporary neglect of philosophy of religion: 9:46
Theology and religion: 24:29
For true religion, correct theology is helpful but not necessary: 29:35
Revealed theology and rational theology: 41:24
The conflict of the theological and the philosophical faculty: 53:47
Thanks: 1:26:18
Of theology and the conflict between the theological and the philosophical faculty Kant talks in the first section of his Conflict of Faculties (I could not find a free English translation online).
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
All moral action is working towards the realization of the highest good: A world in which people have happiness while also deserving it. But it is Kant's accomplishment to have shown two things: The highest good doesn't mark the beginning but the end of morality, we ought not to realize it because it is good, it is good because we ought to realize it. And the two halves of the highest good cannot be united in the sensual world - whereby it is pointing beyond, towards a supersensual world and forming a bridge from moral philosophy to the philosophy of religion.
Quote: 0:08
The highest good in Kant's philosophy: 1:15
The highest good doesn't mark the beginning but the end of morality: 3:34
The highest physical good: 18:15
The highest moral good: 36:36
The highest (ethical) good: 1:02:32
The dialectic of practical reason: 1:18:55
Ancient attempts at solving the dialectic: 1:23:50
The highest physical and moral good are separated: 1:39:11
The highest juridical good: 1:51:31
Most of the time morality and prudence align: 2:03:58
Most people are bad and prefer their adventage over morality: 2:09:27
The common objections against Kant: 2:19:38
Morality is to be prefered over one's own adventage: 2:33:08
The solution of the dialectic of practical reason in religion: 3:02:17
Thanks: 3:09:49
The highest good Kant discusses in his Critique of Pure Reason: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm and most of all in his Critique of Practical Reason: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5683/5683-h/5683-h.htm
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
Most people seek a passive happiness: Resting, indulging, receiving pleasure. Kant however is aware that there is also an active happiness: Being active, creating, bringing forth meaning.
Quote: 0:08
Kant teaches mostly a negative path to happiness: 0:20
Possible sources of happiness: 8:48
Passive & active happiness: 13:45
Why activity is pleasurable: 35:28
The active person doesn't only work but also rests or plays: 54:10
The unity of all sages and philosophers on happiness and how today it is not discussed: 58:33
Thanks: 1:19:42
On activity and the happiness growing out of it Kant never talked comprehensively or systematically but rather made remarks in various places. It is recommended to study especially his lectures on his topic, both his lectures on metaphysics: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant_d7g2/mode/2up as well as his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 as well as his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any English translations.)
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
In theoretical regard Kant dismisses the idealism that declares the world to be a mere illusion. Practically, however, we should act as if it was true: We should consider the brevity and vanity of life, treat the world as a children's game and not take anything as important except our moral duty. This is the path to a constantly cheerful heart.
Quote: 0:08
Nothing in life has value except our morality: 0:22
Life is short and fleeting: 27:54
Mere life, measured by its pleasure, is worthless: 34:43
Practical idealism: 54:18
The power of imagination as condition of the possibility of practical idealism: 1:21:41
The constantly cheerful heart: 1:51:44
Abstraction as means to a happy life: 2:01:00
Thanks: 2:22:23
The posture of practical idealism and the constantly cheerful heart Kant discusses mainly in his works on anthropology, so in his Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view: http://korpora.org/kant/aa07/230.html, his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 and his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/234.html. (I could not find any free English translations online) But also his lectures on logic deal with art at times, that is with the difference between the aesthetical and the logical: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes241imma/page/n5/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes242imma/page/n7/mode/2up (English translations exist, but unfortunately I couldn't find them for free on the internet.) You may also gain an impression of Kant's attitude towards life with its brevity and towards death through his Thoughts on the Occasion of Mr. Johann Friedrich von Funk’s Untimely Death https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/84129/excerpt/9780521884129_excerpt.pdf
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
Each inclination is a chain. It binds us to the objects which we need for satisfying it. And the more we satisfy it the more we become dependent on it through habit and also get numb towards the pleasure. Whoever wants to be happy therefore should not chase after satisfaction of his needs but strive for having as little needs as possible. Kant recommends along with Epicurus a modest life: Don’t deny yourself delights, don’t live in complete asceticism, but be content with little and simple delights, enjoy other pleasures from time to time when there is an opportunity, but don’t make yourself dependent on them.
Quote: 0:08
The positive path towards happiness: Get what you require: 0:38
The negative path towards happiness: Require little: 19:10
Modesty instead of wantoness: 26:21
People should be able to do without, but not actually do without everything: 38:36
Whoever is dependent on things is immoral and unhappy: 1:04:14
Kant's advices: 1:35:26
- Abstain from futile desires: 1:36:13
- Think how many live without whatever is a need to you: 1:39:54
- Don’t let habits turn into inclinations through habit: 1:46:31
- Always keep some pleasures in prospect for later: 2:08:18
- Don’t sacrifice the whole for a part: 2:22:20
- Keep in mind that every gain is a loss and the other way around: 2:30:54
Conclusion: 2:41:24
Thanks: 2:45:16
The posture of modesty Kant discusses mostly in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up and in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa19/ (I am not aware of any English translations).
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
People's misery mostly doesn't come from outside difficulties or blows of fate but from them letting things affect their mood too much and being too sensitive. Against this Kant advises a stoic equanimity: Allowing no thing an influence on one's psyche, not being sad about anything except one's own bad behaviour. This however doesn't mean indifference: A person should be sentimental and should take things to heart, that is let himself be moved, but they should not rob him of his peace of mind.
Quote: 0:08
People aren't victims of their affections and passions: 1:29
The wise person does not need to overcome himself but isn't at war with himself in the first place: 13:25
People ought to be equanimous, not indifferent: 22:39
People ought to take things to heart, not let them affect their mood: 31:46
People ought to be sentimental, not sensitive: 51:55
True equanimity comes from character: 1:02:40
The oversensitivness of the present is an issue of civilization: 1:20:09
Equanimity does not go together with hedonism: 1:38:07
Thanks: 1:48:37
The posture of equanimity Kant discusses mainly in his works on anthropology, so in his Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view: http://korpora.org/kant/aa07/230.html, his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 and his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/234.html. (I could not find any free English translations online) But also his lectures on logic deal with art at times, that is with the difference between the aesthetical and the logical: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes241imma/page/n5/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes242imma/page/n7/mode/2up (English translations exist, but unfortunately I couldn't find them for free on the internet.)
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
A person should tame their affections and passions. This is a moral duty, for through them you harm others but also lose your own reason and through this your freedom and your human dignity. It however is also advised pragmatically, for the affections and passions bring all kinds of misery upon people, an equanimous life which is free of them therefore is a more happy life.
Quote: 0:08
Happiness we attain through independence: 0:58
Affections: 8:57
Passions: 33:36
The similarities between affections and passions: 49:48
The differences of affections and passions: 54:40
Passions are always directed at people: 58:58
Classification of passions: 1:12:37
1. Material passions: 1:22:35
2. Formal passions: 1:33:01
- The passion for freedom: 1:33:35
- The passions for honour, power and money: 2:08:25
The purpose of affections and passions: 2:27:09
Passions come about through the power of imagination: 2:47:24
Kant is the apologist of sensuality: 3:06:25
Thanks: 3:09:29
Overview over the faculties of the mind according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/faculties-of-the-mind-and-critiques-according-to-Kant.jpg
Affections and passions Kant discusses mainly in his works on anthropology, so in his Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view: http://korpora.org/kant/aa07/230.html, his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 and his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/234.html. (I could not find any free English translations online) But also his lectures on logic deal with art at times, that is with the difference between the aesthetical and the logical: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes241imma/page/n5/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes242imma/page/n7/mode/2up (English translations exist, but unfortunately I couldn't find them for free on the internet.)
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
For a long time practical philosophy was considered the doctrine of the good life and of happiness. Morality was often considered a part of this or also a means to reach happiness. Kant's accomplishment lies in having strictly distinguished both. The proper or pure practical philosophy only deals with moral duty in his system, unconcerned with our personal adventage or happiness. Nevertheless Kant also in many places made remarks about what a good life consists of. And the cliché of Kant only preaching and himself living cold, joyless dutifulness is not true: Sensuality and our desires according to him should be governed by reason, but not supressed, rather they should get their due.
Quote: 0:08
The place of the doctrine of good life in the architectonic of Kant's system: 0:35
A universally valid doctrine of happiness is not possible: 13:48
Kant's remarks on happiness are less original than other parts of his thinking: 24:17
Kant did not reject sensuality and pleasure in the name of morality: 28:13
Morality and prudence mostly align: 57:33
Kant stands for moral rigorism but not moral purism: 1:09:06
Virtue is strength and courage and therefore not grumpy but cheerful: 1:25:40
Kant himself enjoyed his life: 1:43:23
Moral duty should be done for its own sake, not because it is adventagous to us: 2:01:34
Thanks: 2:09:11
Overiew over philosophy according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Philosophy-according-to-Kant.jpg
Overiew over metaphysics according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Metaphysics-according-to-Kant-scaled.jpg
The relationship of reason and sensuality, moral duty and prudent joy of life and his rejection of grumpy ethics and the virtue of monks Kant discusses most extensively in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translation).
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
Kant's position towards animals is often attacked but usually completely misunderstood. According to him we don't have duties towards animals but still duties in regards to animals. From the standpoint of right they are items, meaning they can be possessed and and used and have no rights just as they have no duties. Still we ought to treat them with care. Not for their but for our own sake: Because it would not befit our own human dignity to not behave like rational beings and not act in a purposeful manner. Kant's moral philosophy therefore is one that not only forbids treating animals disregardingly but even to treat lifeless objects disregardingly.
Quote: 0:08
Kant's position towards animals: 1:55
The nature of animals: 10:41
- The faculty of cognition of animals: 21:51
- The feelings of animals: 45:17
- The faculty of desiring of animals: 1:03:50
- The souls of animals and their life after death: 1:13:09
The criticism of Kant's position: 1:16:37
Animals are items without rights: 1:34:54
Kant rejects animal abuse: 1:54:19
Kant is not anthropocentric but ratiocentric: 2:06:36
We mustn't abuse animals because otherwise we become numb: 2:21:11
We mustn't abuse animals out of reverence for ourselves: 2:26:39
Reverence for ourselves indeed is the reason people treat animals regardingly, even if they aren't aware of it: 2:36:35
Why people really reject Kant's moral philosophy in regards to animals: 2:52:52
A person ought to not be possessed by the spirit of destruction: 3:00:01
The duties in regards to animals are wide duties and left to our own discretion: 3:24:33
Everything ought to be a matter of conscience to us: 3:32:57
Thanks: 3:38:38
Overview over the faculties of the mind according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/faculties-of-the-mind-and-critiques-according-to-Kant.jpg
Overiew of sensuality according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sensuality-according-to-Kant.jpg
The moral relationship with animals and how we should treat them is a topic in the Metaphysics of Morals: https://debatewikiarchive.github.io/circuitdebater/file/view/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf as well as in the lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translation).
Whoever is interested in Kant's own relationship with animals should read the descriptions of his life by his acquaintances, especially Ehregott Andreas Christoph Wasianski's Immanuel Kant in his final years of life: https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10064190?page=1 (I am not aware of any free English translation).
The nature of animals in distinction from human nature Kant addresses in various places of his lectures on metaphysics: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant_d7g2/mode/2up as well as his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 (I am not aware of any free English translation).
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
The state of nature is a war of all against all. Only public right can create perpetual peace. There must be laws which secure for each his own, and these laws must be binding and enforced. States right is supposed to create peace between individuals, the right of nations is supposed to bring peace between states. But for such a states right and right of nations to be able to be established there first needs to be a global cosmopolitan right: There mustn't be total war of all against all after all, rather every human being must have a universal right of visitation. For only if someone who does not belong to a legal community und is not protected through the laws governing it, has the opportunity to at least offer joining it, can a legal community ever come into being in the first place.
Quote: 0:08
Public right and cosmopolitanism: 1:45
There must be a cosmopolitan right to hospitality: 10:44
Refugees: 27:27
Colonialism: 55:16
The significance of cosmopolitan right in the face of totalitarianism: 1:16:39
Thanks: 1:30:09
Cosmopolitan right Kant discusses in his text On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm as well as in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
Perpetual peace between states is possible if these enter into a federation of nations and submit to binding international law. For this to be possible two conditions should be met inside the states: There should be freedom of thought so that criticism and proposals for reaching perpetual peace are possible, and the sate should have a republican consitution so that wars are only possible with the approval of the people that has to wage them.
Quote: 0:08
Peace through right: 2:54
There ought to be freedom of thought: 13:23
The state ought to be a republic: 17:00
Perpetual peace is possible, even if humans are evil: 45:24
Thanks: 59:23
The significance of the freedom of thought and of a republican constitution for peace Kant discusses in his essay On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
Only one thing can guarantee perpetual peace: When the lawlessness between states is ended and internationally law which is binding for all is established and enforced by a federation of nations including all states. For such a federation possibly being established once, states should voluntarily follow a kind of international law and law of war even in the state of lawlessness: a law to conduct themselves in such a manner that an eventual joined entry into a federation of nations and a peaceful legal order remain possible. This means they should treat wars, when they are fighting them, as a necessary evil of the state of nature, but never engage in total war which aims at victory at any cost and at destroying the opponent, rather war should always be carried out in a way which leaves the possibility for eventual peace.
Quote: 0:08
How things are and how they ought to be in international law: 1:52
States should work towards peace through their conduct: 9:47
What is to be done immediately: 17:02
- When peace is made all further claims are to be given up and all future reasons for resuming the same war are to be resolved: 18:08
- No state shall meddle with the inner affairs of another state: 28:56
- Wars are to be fought only for just reasons: 43:35
- Wars are to be fought only by just means: 1:01:00
What is to be done eventually: 1:43:21
Why there must be justice even in a state of injustice and there shouldn't be any total wars: 2:01:26
The maxim of publicity: 2:32:57
Thanks: 2:47:53
The Palestine Laboratory:
https://youtu.be/1GvkFwpzDhI?si=buFGtwvlVU4IqT6j
https://youtu.be/5pPQydBGwQY?si=0Fw0nKsuh_u7F8mp
How we can leave the state of nature between states and can work towards a federation of nations, Kant explains in his On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
Public right has only one single task: To give to each his own and thereby secure perpetual peace. This doesn't mean merely a ceasefire but a state in which a new outbreak of war is impossible and the right is secured. For this the lawlessness between states has to be ended and a federation of nations which enforces international law has to be created.
Quote: 0:08
War is the greatest evil on earth: 0:51
Peace is not ceasefire but justice: 18:16
International law should not be established through a state of nations: 36:30
International law should be established through a federation of nations: 44:54
A federation of nations that secures peace is possible: 1:04:25
Kant's examples and hope for the federation of nations: 1:14:58
The modern equality delusion: 1:29:25
The slow progress of justice: 2:07:05
Our political task for the enforcement of international law: 2:23:51
Thanks: 2:56:14
On perpetual peace one may read above all Kant's text On Perpetual Peace: , also his essay On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf, additional remarks can be found in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf, his lectures on moral philosophy and the philosophy of right: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up and in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy and the philosophy of right: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa19/ and on anthropology: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa15/ (I am not aware of any English translations).
The Iroquois Confederacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4gU2Tsv6hY
Noone in the public today is as inspired by the idea of international law and the ideal of a federation of nations as Francesca Albanese, whoever is enough of a cosmopolitan to care for the cause of peace therefore should listen to her, which is why I have created a playlist of speeches, interviews and conversations by and with Albanese: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ5EHjVpOe5EWVWz1xR2GRbAee_YGTIdP
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
Even if within the states there is a monopoly of power and rule of law, between different states and peoples there is still lawlessness and the right of the strong. This is the state of nature on the level of the right of nations and the state of nature is always a war of all against all. The thin facade of civilization breaks apart as soon as people leave behind their own society with its customs and laws and enter this lawless jungle. In the way they deal with other nations even or most of all the civilized nations turn out to be ruthless barbarians. And this barbarism in the end turns inward. To end the barbarism, to establish justice and thereby not just a temporary ceasefire but perpetual peace, that is the task of the right of nations or international law.Quote: 0:08Peace is not ceasefire but rule of law: 1:54What is just can be determined by the maxim of publicity: 23:19The lawless anarchy between states: 32:27The civilized nations are outwardly barbarians: 45:28The outer barbarism turns people barbarian inwardly too: 1:55:53The perpetual peace is possible through international law: 2:03:19Thanks: 2:09:19On war and its consequences and the barbarism that goes along with it Kant writes in On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf as well as in various places of his handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ (I am not aware of any English translation).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
A person ought to be a citizen of the world: To not just care for the constrained interests of his self, his class, his nation, to not just judge out of the narrowness of his limited perspective. Rather a person should care for all human matters, take an interest in the whole world as a citizen of that world and always also consider what is best for the world out of a cosmopolitan attitude. The common best for humanity however is perpetual peace and therefore universal justice. The world citizen therefore welcomes the progress of republicanism and international law, even where he isn't directly affected. Indirectly he still is: for the universal best necessarily is also what's best for the individual. Especially the Germans though have a special disposition and vocation to not follow the national delusion but to be citizens for the world according to Kant.
Quote: 0:08
Cosmopolitanism: 1:49
Especially scholars and rulers should be world citizens: 23:50
The philosopher is always a world citizen: 41:46
The German national character: 55:25
Thanks: 1:17:59
Scattered remarks about the cosmopolitan attitude can be found specially in Kant's handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ (I am not aware of any English translation), this attitude however is alive in all of Kant's writings, especially those on the philosophy of right.
Together with this lecture I'm publishing a cosmopolitan playlist with videos of interest for every person with a cosmopolitan attitude. As with my other playlists I will add to it now and then, when I come across fitting videos. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ5EHjVpOe5GiX6N3DcxghQzOINnAjYAF
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
Love for the fatherland should not be like the love for a beef steak from which everyone cuts off a slice for himself, Kant says. The true patriot takes his commonwealth not as loot but he serves the whole. This service however is not chimerical delusion only if it is a service of justice. The patriot fights for the rule of law and a durable constitution that preserves it.
Quote: 0:08
The Government ought to be patriotic: 1:40
Patriotism is not nationalism: 16:35
The patriot considers the state not his possession but himself a servant of the rule of law: 20:52
Fascism and ausklärung (entwilightment): 32:49
The unpatriotic mob: 46:24
National delusion vs. patriotic service of the rule of law: 1:11:39
Thanks: 1:29:28
The patriotic way of thinking is described in the second part of On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf. Further scattered remarks can be found in Kant's handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and his handwritten estate on the philosophy of right: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/443.html (I am not aware of any English translation).
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
Improvements of the state towards more freedom and justice Kant wants to accomplish through step by step reform, which in turn is brought about through public criticism and suggestion of improvements. Where not even this is possible and censorship is in place, the only remaining option is to hope for better times and to act as a good and law-abiding citizen who at most engages in passive resistence when he is expected to do things that are in violation of the moral law. Active resistence and revolutions however are necessarily an injustice for they destroy the right itself before establishing a new one. If they nevertheless happen however, they should be taken as a cry of nature for freedom and we should make the best out of them. In this way Kant's relationship to revolutions was very nuanced. According to principles he rejected them and would never have become a revolutionary, wherever they took place however he welcomed them enthusiastically.
Quote: 0:08
What should a person do in a despotic state?: 0:48
Quietly wait for better times: 10:40
People are in favour of revolutions not because they are legitimate but because they are eudaimonists who don't care about right: 13:50
Revolutions are always unjust: 24:05
Revolutions destroy the civil state and throw people back into the state of nature: 59:16
Revolutions hardly ever lead to the state becoming a republic: 1:18:54
Why revolutions should not be opposed, despite being unjust: 1:35:06
Defiance is legitimate, resistence is not: 1:46:40
Kant's critique of revolutions is to be read as subtile endorsement of the French Revolution: 2:04:59
Kant's own relationship with revolutions: 2:13:20
When revolutions and resistence aren't unjust, without however being just: 2:24:04
Thanks: 3:02:38
The topic of revolution Kant discusses again and again in his works on the philosophy of right. For example in On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm and On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf as well as in the preliminary works to the both texts: https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/153.html & https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/125.html (I am not aware of any English translations) and also in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf and his handwritten estate on the philosophy of right: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/443.html (I am not aware of any English translations). It is recommended to also check out the respective passages in his lectures on moral philosophy on the question of how a person ought to behave under despotism: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any English translations).
Hannah Arendt too remarked on the relationship between revolution and despotism insofar as both are based on the same eudaimonism: https://youtu.be/l1fyT8nAJOY?si=HfgeWHwoWX-y8pMt.
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
No state has been fully republican in the sense of Kant so far. This begs the question how a despotic state may be made more republican. Kant did not support the path of revolution, which always is an injustice, but that of step by step reform. For this it is necessary that the philosophers in the world sense - i. e. the sages serving as lawgivers of reason and reflecting on the final purposes of humanity, while abstracting from everything particular and all self-interest - be heard by the rulers. And for this in turn it is only necessary that they have the right to speak their thoughts freely in public.
Quote: 0:08
How a despotic state is to be made more republican: 1:11
The philosophers ought not to rule but to advise the ruler: 12:27
- Kant's own nature did not strive for ruling: 23:32- Power corrupts the jugdment: 30:08
There must be freedon of speech for the philosophers: 1:02:51
Freedom of speech is not a purpose in itself: 1:33:52Darkening: 1:51:30
Thanks: 2:19:48
On the role of the philosopher in the state and the political meaning of so-called freedom of speech Kant writes in his text Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm. In addition you can also read the relevant reflections in his handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ (I am not aware of any English translation).
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
Kant distinguishes two forms of government: The despotic and the republican one. The form of government here is different from the form of state: Autocracy, aristocracy or democracy all can govern in a despotic or a republican manner. What matters for Kant is not who is the sovereign in the state, what matters is that the sovereign represents the citizens and gives laws which protect freedom and represent the common will, as well as that the sovereign isn't the regent at the same time, i. e. that the lawgiver and the executive power are separate from one another. The republic is a rule of law state which subjects people only to reason, despotism is an unjust state where they are dependent on the arbitrary whims of the ruler.
Quote: 0:08
Republic and despotism: 0:16
The architectonic deduction of the forms of government: 23:19
1) In the republic all human beings are free: 42:47
- A state that wants to make people happy is despotic: 55:33
2) In the republic all subjects are equal before the law: 1:13:23
- The republican equality is equality of force through the law: 1:24:45
- The lawgiver is above the law and therefore must be irreprehensible: 1:36:24
3) In the republic all independent citizens are fraternally united as lawgivers: 1:40:10
- Right of suffrage: 2:20:10
What makes a republic: 3:02:05
Liberty, equality, fraternity: 3:04:33
The republic according to the four titles of the table of categories: 3:17:11
The form of government matters, not the form of rulership: 3:34:57
The endurance of the republic ought to be guaranteed by the constitution: 3:43:49
Thanks: 3:58:23
Republicanism and its three principles Kant describes in his essays Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm and On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf as well as in the preliminary works to the both texts: https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/153.html & https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/125.html and also in his handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and on the philosophy of right: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/443.html (I am not aware of any English translations).
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
-
Kant supports the separation of the legislative, exective and judicative powers, already suggested before him by Montesquieu. However the legislative power to him is souvereign: Every subject of the state and also the two other powers are under the law which determines what is just and what is unjust. The lawgiver himself however cannot possibly be under the law, since it is only given by him. For that reason he must be irreprehensible and even like God's representative on earth and mustn't be able to commit an injustice, since he could not be held accountable for it. Kant wants to achieve this exactly through the separation of powers: The souvereign is to rule but not to govern the state.
Quote: 0:08
Separation of powers in Kant's thinking and its deduction from reason: 0:37
The monopoly of power of the state: 14:35
The lawgiver is the souvereign: 31:33
The souvereignty of the legislative and the danger of despotism as a problem of the philosophy of right: 51:18
Solution: The souvereign is to be religious: 54:56
Solution: Strict separation of powers between legislative and executive: 1:03:03
Thanks: 2:03:47
On the separation of powers and the role of the overlord in the state Kant talks in the second section of On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf as well as in the preliminary works to the same text: https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/125.html. To better understand this topic one should definitely also read his handwritten estate on the philosophy of right: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/443.html and his lectures on the philosophy of right: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any English translations).
Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U
Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai
- Laat meer zien
