Lets assume that Einstein was a habitual flasher. That's obviously a bad thing, but it doesn't invalidate E=MC squared. Being a flasher wouldn't be the reason the man is remembered and it doesn't invalidate his important work. By modern standards racist views were the default/consensus position in 18th century Europe, largely driven by the continent being then so far ahead of the game in so many fields. (The strict empiricist David Hume also says similarly disparaging things in his essay "On National Characters".) It's entirely possible that at some future point that Veganism will be the norm and our generation will largely be deemed callous murderers. Will that result in all our opinions being similarly re-evaluated and then invalidated, due to our not realising that animal lives mattered?
Right, but the Einstein example is a little easier, since flashing people has nothing to do with the equation. By contrast, being unethical (racist) has something to do with an ethical theory, since one task of such a theory is to say how we should behave. So, the problem of racist Kant needs to be addressed in a way that the problem of flashing Einstein doesn't. And that's what I try to do in the talk.
@@nathanbauer2987 Accepted, You have my like sir. Your lecture awoke me from my dogmatic slumber; unfortunately, I all too quickly went back to sleep....
And now you see the problem in this discussion. People take what they want from what they hear. This was not a good presentation.... he goes on the attack mode first then defends Kant at the end. He lost it from the beginning. This discussion cannot be monolithic. Going on 300 hears since Kant, it is a little more complex.
I tend to agree with you because here's the thing: we are culture bound to the times we live in. There are accepted ways of being in the world we live in - and we want to belong. There's the academic/intellectual, political, religious, social worlds among others. Very few people can see outside the cave of their own worlds because we cannot be truly 100% objective - even if we get rid of our masks. It is their opinion and maybe educated guess about what is going on because we really cannot anticipate the future, and we really don't live in the past. This leads me to wonder what about our current culture will be reassessed 300+ years in the future as to how racist or backward or insane or judgmental or (fill in the blank) we are now in our current culture bound world? This is off the top of my head so before I review and/or edit, I'm sending!
Kant was also only a human being, a child of his time and, as is well known, never left Königsberg (today: Kaliningrad). He obtained his knowledge of other countries and their people second-hand (not least from the Anglo-Saxon, Dutch and Spanish-Portuguese colonial powers of the time!) and in this way formed his judgment on the basis of second-hand reports, which in turn were racist prejudiced. If the descendants of these states accuse him of racism, they should first hold their own noses! Those who point defamatory at others always point three fingers back at themselves! What one can rightly accuse him of, in view of his otherwise critical attitude, is that he accepted these reports relatively uncritically, instead of consequently abstaining from judgment due to a lack of personal experience. Yet - This does not affect his ethical reflection at all - the categorical imperative has no ethnic restrictions but affects ALL people, that is, humanity per se - which is not the case with a racist. Racial ethics are always group-specific (based on certain prejudices), ie ethics that discriminate against certain groups of people. One should distinguish between the personal, accidental and time-dependent individual views of the philosopher and his philosophy oriented towards strict generality!
So Kant fails to live up to his own most basic moral standards, and yet we treat him as a moral authority.... Also, can you really be considered a product of your time if youre one of the most influential developers of a pseudo-scientific theory you spent a huge chunk of your life trying to prove? Doesnt exactly strike me as the right time to suggest, oh we was raised this way... clutching at straws perhaps? (Consider Miranda Fricker's Testimonial Injustice - how can it really be unjust to acknowledge that someone was enthusiastically trying to prove a pseudo-scientific racial hierarchy and white supremacy?)
@@RowanCHSS English is my native language, and although I do not have a hearing disability like some, I prefer subtitles because they help me follow along. Generally many of those who have interest in Kantian philosophy are already familiar with his work and terminology, however, those who are looking to become acquainted with Kant may have trouble understanding what Dr. Bauer is saying, or what he is talking about, and subtitles offer a form of reference to look further as well as fact-check what is being asserted. I find it a genuine shame that this content is not more accessible to those interested because of the lack of cc.
Ten minutes into the lecture, and I realize that I now must spend an hour also researching Galileo and Newton and Copernicus's racism to determine whether their astronomy and physics theories and experiments are valid.
Astronomy and physics have nothing to do with ethics, racism on the other hand does. This in and of itself in does not disqualify all of Kant's views on ethics but it does ask that his views on ethics must be re-examined with this in mind even if the end result is exactly the same.
@@paulhutchinson5608 You're implying that his views hasn't been re-examined already. It's seriously ridiculous to see how people keep pushing a topic that has been known in Kantianism for years and is settled already. The three main works of Kant do not have any of Kants personal racist beliefs inside them. Period. His categorical imperative as well as Kants definition of humany dignity are literal proof of that. I read all three main works of Kant, studied it to the point where I only could sleep 4 hours a day. Except for his anthropological work, there is absolutely nothing harmful in those three main works that form the foundation of Kantian ethics.
@@Teddylandclub I would suggest that any topics that deal with ethics and philosophy (or anything outside the realm of hard facts) must always be re-examined. By each society and each individual respectively. All individuals and cultures bring new assumptions as well as new perspectives, this includes cultures seperated not just by geography but also by time. Your knowledge on Kant specifically is no doubt superior to my own, that being said you have not convinced me that there is nothing new to learn or critique simply because something has already been critiqued enough, not specifically on Kant but on all the knowledge the world has gathered (including Kant's works). Elements of Einstein's law of relativity as well as other topics are still being critiqued, errors are still being found in his work and I personally think he would be grateful that the world does not simply stop critiquing because his work has already been looked at enough, it would not surprise me if Kant felt the same.
@@Teddylandclub It's certainly foolish to think that nobody has considered the relationship between Kant's racism and other aspects of his philosophy. Books such as 'Another Mind-Body Problem' by John Harfouch (2018) and other texts written by Robert Bernasconi, Charles Mills, Dilek Huseyinzadegan, etc. all do this work. I don't think it's fair to say that this topic is "settled," however. It remains an open question how to reconcile Kant's theoretical insights with his racism, misogyny, and Eurocentrism. But I do think it would be equally foolish to dismiss his work for these reasons alone. It's just imperative for us to continue thinking it through more extensively. Just to give one example of a view from Kant's most influential work that has harmful consequences if ignored is his claim, in the appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic in the 'Critique of Pure Reason', that the idea of God arises as a transcendental need of our reason. In other words, Kant naturalizes the idea of a monotheistic God in his metaphysics of reason. This view is problematic because it entails that only monotheistic conceptions of God are strictly speaking rational, which quickly justifies the negative evaluation of many eastern religions (such Hinduism or many forms of Buddhism) as being 'less developed'. So let's not pretend like any of these questions are settled. And let's also not fail to recognize that seemingly harmless features of his main works can have problematic consequences that are worth thinking through.
And Kant is the father of modern ethical theory. I have struggled through grad school knowing that my school uses him as an ethical, morality model. Doesn't racism inherently disqualify someone as a beacon of right and good when it comes to *how* to treat people and *how* to interact with people?
I agree that we should not look to Kant as a beacon of right and good. But that still leaves the hard question of what stand we should take on his ethical theories. I've tried to make the argument that there remains much of value there.
How many people have been killed, raped, tortured, imprisoned, had their children ripped from them and sold as goods, deprived of land, liberty, resources and life chances because of Newton's intellectual eccentricities?
Exactly. Kant, like Newton, dabbled in what today we'ld see as pseudoscience, and his flawed perspective is better explained by that, than appealing to some kind of metaphysical entity such as "racism".
@@Magnulus76 You honestly believe tha alchemy and racism are historically equivalent? Alchemy laid all of the groundwork for chemistry. What has been the effect of the horrific misanthropy of Kant, Hegel, Hume and too many others to name?
@@andrewjohnson8232 Kant's primitive anthropology laid the groundwork for real anthropology. Just like his ideas about race were largely bogus, at least involved taking an actual interest in studying other peoples, instead of going by religious tradition. Likewise, alchemy was bogus, but it did lead to modern chemistry.
@@Magnulus76 Kant's anthropology was derived from Enlightenment premises, so I'm not convinced that it can in any sense be called primitive. I'm also not convinced that there is any such thing as real or advanced anthropology, as there is nothing so definitive of any person or group as to generate any category other than human being. If by religious tradition you mean Christianity, then it is difficult to see where the Christian premise of descent from common ancestors was advanced upon or corrected by Enlightenment, or any other anthropology.
The problem with Kant and "some other" people of the Enlightenment is that they failed to use reason and empirical analysis. They were perfectly willing to base their analysis on tales and antidotal accounts, contrary to enlighten reasoned evidentiary based analysis. Why? Because they are human and incapable of true objectivity. They would have done better to contemplate scriptures call to humility and God's truth, He created men in his image, and therefore, they are due respect and honor by right. This is what Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams concluded in the inalienable right insertion with the Constitution and their ultimate rejection of this aspect of Kant. In investigating the life of Jefferson and Franklin, their use of reason and application of verification of observable facts lead them to a seeming conclusion among some of the enlightenment movement, the abolition of slavery.
Somehow I find this troubling. Because one of the main ideas that Kant pushes is that a person is able to determine what is right and wrong through pure reason. Saying that the problem of Kant is that he failed to use reason and empirical analysis is completely wrong and uninformed. When most of Kant's life work is centered around autonomy --- actions determined by faculty of reason. He was one of the philosophers who rejected the idea most often pushed by religion. He in fact was a moral absolutist.
@@MariaJose-mx7uv Thank you for your response. My point regarding Kant is that when it came to the "evaluations of other peoples", he failed to use reason or the scientific method. Within the context of this method is the observation of the material world and accepting the facts it reveals. Kant did not do this. He based his analysis on anecdotal evidence from sailors. This goes contrary to every aspect of Enlightened thought. He used tales and stories of 3rd parties to make the conclusion that people could be "ranked". It is inexcusable under the standards he himself set. Jefferson and Franklin had the opportunity to make observations in proper context and came to the conclusion that people were equal, only circumstances caused observable differences. Kant did not have this opportunity for observation. He, therefore, should have concluded with the statement, "I don't know". it was a mistake with ramifications. I find it interesting that if he truly used reason, his conclusion would have made him akin to Franklin and Jefferson. Otherwise, a conclusion, I don't know would have at least caused no harm. Kant was human, so he is allowed grace due to imperfection.
BTW... what level are these students? Like, every other word is, like, you know, like!... right? And this professor isn't much different. Right seems to be his interrogative/adjective/adverb/etc.
Seems likely they are graduate students. Hedges in between words are not an ideal speech pattern but if that’s your complaint I think you missed the crucial element, which was the content of the lecture
Meinst du damit nur Kants bekannten werke, oder auch seine problematische werke wie "Von den verchiedenen Rassen der Menschen“? Lies das mal, bin neugierig wie du das könnst rechtfertigen
to german POC, none of these thoughts are very new. especially black german intellectuals dealt with questions like thatmore than 20 years ago. i don't believe that the real issue about this toppic (kant and race) is strictly realted to christianity (although there is a fundamental connection), no! but this brings us to the root of racism. we are facing a 'moral', philosophical and (pseudeo)scientific justification for the expoitation and abuse of all non-white people of the world. By bringing previous christian excuses for all kinds of exploitations of POC to a seemingly scientific level, the 'pioneers' of enlightenment (like Herr Kant and his friends) enabled conquering, colonializing slave-trade countries to carry on with their - in the end - economical purposes. enlightenment, in fact, created racism. it gave the aggressors an excuse (previous, christian excuses were "in the name of god we have to baptize the poor heathens") for enslavement by declaring them 'subhumans' and therefore not deserving human rights all signed and declared by 'renomated' scientists! most of our modern racist believes have their roots in kant's (and other proponents of enlightenment) ideas! anyways, for german black intellectuals this is nothing new...
@@lidijajuric6771 I can literally tell that you didn't read or understand Kant at all, but just like to pull something out from your ass. Kantian Ethics never "enabled" anything in that regard. Kant's definition of the categorical imperative and Kant's definition of human dignity literally refute all of your points. In fact, Kant was even one of the *first* Europeans to support the abolition of slavery and colonialism (see his work: "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch" by Kant). While Kant did had racist prejudices, his racism actually never made its way into Kantian Ethics (see the three main works). In fact, his three main works all work upon the premise that all humans are equal and all humans have human dignity. Thus, whatever nonsense you're spilling here, it's not based on facts, but just on pure speculation on your part, literally schizo conspiracy theory nonsense. It's funny how many of you pseudo-Internet experts keep writing nonsensical comments like these without anything to back up your claims. It's tragic, really.
That's what you took away from this lecture? Regardless of what position you support, this is at best a bizarre distortion and at worst evidence of a lack of comprehension. Or maybe I am mistaken as I have not come across any point where he demands that we discard Kant's theories. He especially does not demand to discard the progressive aspects of Kant, only to compare them with the reactionary ideas and pose the question how such contradictory positions can be held by one person. To understand this is an important aspiration of philosophy. Neither kindergarten speculation nor cheap identity politics is what we need here but clear-cut analysis. Sure, the guy seems to be liberal, but the question he is dealing with is still important and he manages to address it with at least a minimum of objectivity - something you unfortunately can't say about your arguments so far.
@@webusecom And now you see the problem in this discussion. People take what they want from what they hear. This was not a good presentation.... he goes on the attack mode first then defends Kant at the end. He lost it from the beginning.
Being a "racist" basically means that you openly admit to seeing tendencies and patterns in human behaviour that are really obvious for all to see, but which you should pretend not to see because it's the "norm" in mainsteam culture today.
No, being a "racist" means you believe a specific race is superior to others. Don't do that sugar-coating bullshit; it makes you look suspicious at best.
@@diabahmed2888 Racial traits aren't always superior or inferior. Racial traits can have contrasting qualities that are neither good or bad. Being skinny might be both good for running distances, and yet bad during a famine when fat deposits would be beneficial.
thank you for recording and uploading this
Lets assume that Einstein was a habitual flasher. That's obviously a bad thing, but it doesn't invalidate E=MC squared. Being a flasher wouldn't be the reason the man is remembered and it doesn't invalidate his important work. By modern standards racist views were the default/consensus position in 18th century Europe, largely driven by the continent being then so far ahead of the game in so many fields. (The strict empiricist David Hume also says similarly disparaging things in his essay "On National Characters".)
It's entirely possible that at some future point that Veganism will be the norm and our generation will largely be deemed callous murderers. Will that result in all our opinions being similarly re-evaluated and then invalidated, due to our not realising that animal lives mattered?
Right, but the Einstein example is a little easier, since flashing people has nothing to do with the equation. By contrast, being unethical (racist) has something to do with an ethical theory, since one task of such a theory is to say how we should behave. So, the problem of racist Kant needs to be addressed in a way that the problem of flashing Einstein doesn't. And that's what I try to do in the talk.
@@nathanbauer2987 Accepted, You have my like sir. Your lecture awoke me from my dogmatic slumber; unfortunately, I all too quickly went back to sleep....
Einstein married his cousin.
@@chadliampearcy For Einstein, everything was relative.
And now you see the problem in this discussion. People take what they want from what they hear. This was not a good presentation.... he goes on the attack mode first then defends Kant at the end. He lost it from the beginning. This discussion cannot be monolithic. Going on 300 hears since Kant, it is a little more complex.
I tend to agree with you because here's the thing: we are culture bound to the times we live in. There are accepted ways of being in the world we live in - and we want to belong. There's the academic/intellectual, political, religious, social worlds among others. Very few people can see outside the cave of their own worlds because we cannot be truly 100% objective - even if we get rid of our masks. It is their opinion and maybe educated guess about what is going on because we really cannot anticipate the future, and we really don't live in the past. This leads me to wonder what about our current culture will be reassessed 300+ years in the future as to how racist or backward or insane or judgmental or (fill in the blank) we are now in our current culture bound world? This is off the top of my head so before I review and/or edit, I'm sending!
Thanks Prof Bauer - Very useful observations which broadens my consideration of Kant's thought---added to my list of references. Asante Sana.
Kant was also only a human being, a child of his time and, as is well known, never left Königsberg (today: Kaliningrad). He obtained his knowledge of other countries and their people second-hand (not least from the Anglo-Saxon, Dutch and Spanish-Portuguese colonial powers of the time!) and in this way formed his judgment on the basis of second-hand reports, which in turn were racist prejudiced. If the descendants of these states accuse him of racism, they should first hold their own noses! Those who point defamatory at others always point three fingers back at themselves!
What one can rightly accuse him of, in view of his otherwise critical attitude, is that he accepted these reports relatively uncritically, instead of consequently abstaining from judgment due to a lack of personal experience.
Yet - This does not affect his ethical reflection at all - the categorical imperative has no ethnic restrictions but affects ALL people, that is, humanity per se - which is not the case with a racist. Racial ethics are always group-specific (based on certain prejudices), ie ethics that discriminate against certain groups of people.
One should distinguish between the personal, accidental and time-dependent individual views of the philosopher and his philosophy oriented towards strict generality!
So Kant fails to live up to his own most basic moral standards, and yet we treat him as a moral authority.... Also, can you really be considered a product of your time if youre one of the most influential developers of a pseudo-scientific theory you spent a huge chunk of your life trying to prove? Doesnt exactly strike me as the right time to suggest, oh we was raised this way... clutching at straws perhaps? (Consider Miranda Fricker's Testimonial Injustice - how can it really be unjust to acknowledge that someone was enthusiastically trying to prove a pseudo-scientific racial hierarchy and white supremacy?)
perhaps he should have considered talking to the people he wishes to so violently slander
Thank you, well said.
Do different people have different capacities for reason?
Great talk! Very informative and interesting. The speaker is extremely conscious and mindful as well.
Sorry to ask, Why i cant enable subtitles in this video?. There is no cc button?
His English is pretty straight forward. What language are you looking for?
RowanCHSS Do you have English subtitles?
English is not my native language and I have hearing problems. Pretty please m8.
@@RowanCHSS English is my native language, and although I do not have a hearing disability like some, I prefer subtitles because they help me follow along. Generally many of those who have interest in Kantian philosophy are already familiar with his work and terminology, however, those who are looking to become acquainted with Kant may have trouble understanding what Dr. Bauer is saying, or what he is talking about, and subtitles offer a form of reference to look further as well as fact-check what is being asserted. I find it a genuine shame that this content is not more accessible to those interested because of the lack of cc.
Well what would have been Kant's views of "civililized" european powers if he had witnessed the savagery displayed in WWI and WWII
Ten minutes into the lecture, and I realize that I now must spend an hour also researching Galileo and Newton and Copernicus's racism to determine whether their astronomy and physics theories and experiments are valid.
Astronomy and physics have nothing to do with ethics, racism on the other hand does. This in and of itself in does not disqualify all of Kant's views on ethics but it does ask that his views on ethics must be re-examined with this in mind even if the end result is exactly the same.
His (and specifically his) lazy racism also puts a blemish on his ability for critical thinking
@@paulhutchinson5608 You're implying that his views hasn't been re-examined already. It's seriously ridiculous to see how people keep pushing a topic that has been known in Kantianism for years and is settled already. The three main works of Kant do not have any of Kants personal racist beliefs inside them. Period. His categorical imperative as well as Kants definition of humany dignity are literal proof of that. I read all three main works of Kant, studied it to the point where I only could sleep 4 hours a day. Except for his anthropological work, there is absolutely nothing harmful in those three main works that form the foundation of Kantian ethics.
@@Teddylandclub I would suggest that any topics that deal with ethics and philosophy (or anything outside the realm of hard facts) must always be re-examined. By each society and each individual respectively. All individuals and cultures bring new assumptions as well as new perspectives, this includes cultures seperated not just by geography but also by time. Your knowledge on Kant specifically is no doubt superior to my own, that being said you have not convinced me that there is nothing new to learn or critique simply because something has already been critiqued enough, not specifically on Kant but on all the knowledge the world has gathered (including Kant's works). Elements of Einstein's law of relativity as well as other topics are still being critiqued, errors are still being found in his work and I personally think he would be grateful that the world does not simply stop critiquing because his work has already been looked at enough, it would not surprise me if Kant felt the same.
@@Teddylandclub It's certainly foolish to think that nobody has considered the relationship between Kant's racism and other aspects of his philosophy. Books such as 'Another Mind-Body Problem' by John Harfouch (2018) and other texts written by Robert Bernasconi, Charles Mills, Dilek Huseyinzadegan, etc. all do this work. I don't think it's fair to say that this topic is "settled," however. It remains an open question how to reconcile Kant's theoretical insights with his racism, misogyny, and Eurocentrism. But I do think it would be equally foolish to dismiss his work for these reasons alone. It's just imperative for us to continue thinking it through more extensively.
Just to give one example of a view from Kant's most influential work that has harmful consequences if ignored is his claim, in the appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic in the 'Critique of Pure Reason', that the idea of God arises as a transcendental need of our reason. In other words, Kant naturalizes the idea of a monotheistic God in his metaphysics of reason. This view is problematic because it entails that only monotheistic conceptions of God are strictly speaking rational, which quickly justifies the negative evaluation of many eastern religions (such Hinduism or many forms of Buddhism) as being 'less developed'.
So let's not pretend like any of these questions are settled. And let's also not fail to recognize that seemingly harmless features of his main works can have problematic consequences that are worth thinking through.
And Kant is the father of modern ethical theory. I have struggled through grad school knowing that my school uses him as an ethical, morality model. Doesn't racism inherently disqualify someone as a beacon of right and good when it comes to *how* to treat people and *how* to interact with people?
I agree that we should not look to Kant as a beacon of right and good. But that still leaves the hard question of what stand we should take on his ethical theories. I've tried to make the argument that there remains much of value there.
You just eat too much liberal bs
No
Should we take great pains to discuss Newton's alchemical preoccupations, as well?
How many people have been killed, raped, tortured, imprisoned, had their children ripped from them and sold as goods, deprived of land, liberty, resources and life chances because of Newton's intellectual eccentricities?
Exactly. Kant, like Newton, dabbled in what today we'ld see as pseudoscience, and his flawed perspective is better explained by that, than appealing to some kind of metaphysical entity such as "racism".
@@Magnulus76
You honestly believe tha alchemy and racism are historically equivalent?
Alchemy laid all of the groundwork for chemistry. What has been the effect of the horrific misanthropy of Kant, Hegel, Hume and too many others to name?
@@andrewjohnson8232 Kant's primitive anthropology laid the groundwork for real anthropology. Just like his ideas about race were largely bogus, at least involved taking an actual interest in studying other peoples, instead of going by religious tradition. Likewise, alchemy was bogus, but it did lead to modern chemistry.
@@Magnulus76
Kant's anthropology was derived from Enlightenment premises, so I'm not convinced that it can in any sense be called primitive. I'm also not convinced that there is any such thing as real or advanced anthropology, as there is nothing so definitive of any person or group as to generate any category other than human being.
If by religious tradition you mean Christianity, then it is difficult to see where the Christian premise of descent from common ancestors was advanced upon or corrected by Enlightenment, or any other anthropology.
The problem with Kant and "some other" people of the Enlightenment is that they failed to use reason and empirical analysis. They were perfectly willing to base their analysis on tales and antidotal accounts, contrary to enlighten reasoned evidentiary based analysis. Why? Because they are human and incapable of true objectivity. They would have done better to contemplate scriptures call to humility and God's truth, He created men in his image, and therefore, they are due respect and honor by right. This is what Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams concluded in the inalienable right insertion with the Constitution and their ultimate rejection of this aspect of Kant. In investigating the life of Jefferson and Franklin, their use of reason and application of verification of observable facts lead them to a seeming conclusion among some of the enlightenment movement, the abolition of slavery.
Somehow I find this troubling. Because one of the main ideas that Kant pushes is that a person is able to determine what is right and wrong through pure reason. Saying that the problem of Kant is that he failed to use reason and empirical analysis is completely wrong and uninformed. When most of Kant's life work is centered around autonomy --- actions determined by faculty of reason. He was one of the philosophers who rejected the idea most often pushed by religion. He in fact was a moral absolutist.
@@MariaJose-mx7uv Thank you for your response. My point regarding Kant is that when it came to the "evaluations of other peoples", he failed to use reason or the scientific method. Within the context of this method is the observation of the material world and accepting the facts it reveals. Kant did not do this. He based his analysis on anecdotal evidence from sailors. This goes contrary to every aspect of Enlightened thought. He used tales and stories of 3rd parties to make the conclusion that people could be "ranked". It is inexcusable under the standards he himself set. Jefferson and Franklin had the opportunity to make observations in proper context and came to the conclusion that people were equal, only circumstances caused observable differences. Kant did not have this opportunity for observation. He, therefore, should have concluded with the statement, "I don't know". it was a mistake with ramifications. I find it interesting that if he truly used reason, his conclusion would have made him akin to Franklin and Jefferson. Otherwise, a conclusion, I don't know would have at least caused no harm. Kant was human, so he is allowed grace due to imperfection.
@@christopherstewart1163
If you believe muh "scientific method" can answer moral questions. You're a fool
BTW... what level are these students? Like, every other word is, like, you know, like!... right? And this professor isn't much different. Right seems to be his interrogative/adjective/adverb/etc.
Seems likely they are graduate students. Hedges in between words are not an ideal speech pattern but if that’s your complaint I think you missed the crucial element, which was the content of the lecture
@@seebasschipman293 Read my previous post on this
This is a weak argument in favor of Kant. 😂
I always use the word "professor" very lightly.
Im hardly an expert.. oh well
Vielleicht sollte man Kant erst mal lesen und zeitlich einzuordnen , dann vl mal nachdenken.
Meinst du damit nur Kants bekannten werke, oder auch seine problematische werke wie "Von den verchiedenen Rassen der Menschen“? Lies das mal, bin neugierig wie du das könnst rechtfertigen
All european teachings are biased and trivial. No shit Sherlock
European are the original gaslighters
#hediedavirgin
to german POC, none of these thoughts are very new. especially black german intellectuals dealt with questions like thatmore than 20 years ago. i don't believe that the real issue about this toppic (kant and race) is strictly realted to christianity (although there is a fundamental connection), no! but this brings us to the root of racism. we are facing a 'moral', philosophical and (pseudeo)scientific justification for the expoitation and abuse of all non-white people of the world. By bringing previous christian excuses for all kinds of exploitations of POC to a seemingly scientific level, the 'pioneers' of enlightenment (like Herr Kant and his friends) enabled conquering, colonializing slave-trade countries to carry on with their - in the end - economical purposes. enlightenment, in fact, created racism. it gave the aggressors an excuse (previous, christian excuses were "in the name of god we have to baptize the poor heathens") for enslavement by declaring them 'subhumans' and therefore not deserving human rights all signed and declared by 'renomated' scientists! most of our modern racist believes have their roots in kant's (and other proponents of enlightenment) ideas!
anyways, for german black intellectuals this is nothing new...
which is like so many things in this presentation a wild thesis.
@@lidijajuric6771 I can literally tell that you didn't read or understand Kant at all, but just like to pull something out from your ass. Kantian Ethics never "enabled" anything in that regard. Kant's definition of the categorical imperative and Kant's definition of human dignity literally refute all of your points. In fact, Kant was even one of the *first* Europeans to support the abolition of slavery and colonialism (see his work: "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch" by Kant). While Kant did had racist prejudices, his racism actually never made its way into Kantian Ethics (see the three main works). In fact, his three main works all work upon the premise that all humans are equal and all humans have human dignity. Thus, whatever nonsense you're spilling here, it's not based on facts, but just on pure speculation on your part, literally schizo conspiracy theory nonsense. It's funny how many of you pseudo-Internet experts keep writing nonsensical comments like these without anything to back up your claims. It's tragic, really.
By this guy's reasoning we should discard Jefferson's proclamation that "All Men are Created Equal" since Jefferson owned slaves.
That's what you took away from this lecture? Regardless of what position you support, this is at best a bizarre distortion and at worst evidence of a lack of comprehension. Or maybe I am mistaken as I have not come across any point where he demands that we discard Kant's theories. He especially does not demand to discard the progressive aspects of Kant, only to compare them with the reactionary ideas and pose the question how such contradictory positions can be held by one person. To understand this is an important aspiration of philosophy. Neither kindergarten speculation nor cheap identity politics is what we need here but clear-cut analysis. Sure, the guy seems to be liberal, but the question he is dealing with is still important and he manages to address it with at least a minimum of objectivity - something you unfortunately can't say about your arguments so far.
@@webusecom And now you see the problem in this discussion. People take what they want from what they hear. This was not a good presentation.... he goes on the attack mode first then defends Kant at the end. He lost it from the beginning.
Being a "racist" basically means that you openly admit to seeing tendencies and patterns in human behaviour that are really obvious for all to see, but which you should pretend not to see because it's the "norm" in mainsteam culture today.
No, being a "racist" means you believe a specific race is superior to others.
Don't do that sugar-coating bullshit; it makes you look suspicious at best.
Mother Nature, History tells us not everyone are the same. It is very immoral and inaccurate to say people are equal.
@@jamalicon1 However to use your morals based on ethics described by for example Kant, is inherently wrong in determining the equality of peoples.
If these tendencies are a construct than you're racist, that's all
@@diabahmed2888 Racial traits aren't always superior or inferior. Racial traits can have contrasting qualities that are neither good or bad. Being skinny might be both good for running distances, and yet bad during a famine when fat deposits would be beneficial.