Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher and one of the central Enlightenment thinkers. Born in Königsberg, Kant’s comprehensive and systematic works in epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics have made him one of the most influential and controversial figures in modern Western philosophy, being called the “father of modern ethics”, the “father of modern aesthetics”, and for bringing together rationalism and empiricism earned the title of “father of modern philosophy”.
In last night’s Darkstream, I examined what is described as one of Kant’s “major works”, “An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?” And, as I think everyone who watched it will confirm, I very easily exposed this highly-regarded historical intellectual as a verbose charlatan who substitutes rhetoric for dialectic, dubious enthymemes for valid logical syllogisms, makes wildly improbable assumptions, and gets basic observations about human nature completely and verifiably wrong.
One particularly cruel viewer even commented that Kant’s arguments sound a bit like Petersonian bafflegarble, which frankly I think is going much too far and is unfair to the Enlightenment philosopher, but while I don’t condone the observation, I can understand it.
It’s also worth noting that Kant cribbed from Aristotle without correctly attributing the concept, while changing the terms he utilized in order to make his justification of elite despotism appear to be more palatable to the public that will be enslaved, not because they are “natural slaves” per Aristotle, but cowards in a state of “self-incurred minority”. Below is just one of the several obvious flaws in what is nothing more than a rhetorical argument:
I have put the main point of enlightenment, of people’s emergence from their self-incurred minority, chiefly in matters of religion because our rulers have no interest in playing guardian over their subjects with respect to the arts and sciences and also because that minority being the most harmful, is also the most disgraceful of all.
This assertion is not only false, but downright risible, particularly in light of the way in which the rulers of Clown World are deeply and observably interested in “playing guardian over their subjects with respect to the arts and sciences” and have done so for decades in a considerably more aggressive, totalitarian, and harmful manner than any religious authority has for centuries.
Kant asserts the inevitability of the impossible, while simultaneously denying the indisputable. As with so many other intellectuals revered by Clown World, a critical reading of Kant quickly reveals him to be more of a useful fraud than a legitimately great thinker.
Kant’s Enlightenment philosophy, like free trade, evolution by natural selection, and free speech, simply has not withstood the test of time. As with those similarly outdated concepts, the more one digs into his work, the more flaws, both in theory and in practice, reveal themselves to the conscientious reader.