Last Friday, Humanities Core hosted the first Friday Forum of our new cycle: a presentation and conversation entitled “What is Enlightenment?” by two of our resident philosophers and seminar leaders, Valentina Ricci and Daniel Siakel. As many students in the Tuesday/Thursday seminars were unable to attend the event and the discussion time was limited, Dr. Siakel has graciously provided a quick redux of the event and posed some questions in hopes of continuing the conversation here in the comment section. The Powerpoint slides for the presentation are available here.
The Friday Forum concerning Kant’s “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” consists of three phases, each of which means to model one mode of philosophical methodology:
(1) understanding another person’s position;
(2) critiquing that position; and
(3) dialoguing about questions that arise in relation to the position or relevant critiques.
The audiences’ questions and comments raise crucial clarifications and complications.
One of these is that, while philosophers aim to understand, this is consistent with there being circumstances in which acting, rather than inquiring, is paramount—in response to racist or sexist discourses, for example.
Another is that, when charitably interpreted, one can employ Kant’s conception of enlightenment to critique Kant (the man) himself and thereby underscore the explanatory power of Kant’s conception, despite Kant’s racism and sexism. If becoming enlightened involves liberating oneself from superstition and prejudice, then Kant himself was not enlightened, according the standards of the position he introduces; for his articulations are rife with extreme prejudice against women and persons of color.
Let’s continue the conversation.
- What questions arose as you read through Kant’s text and watched my and Valentina’s lecture? Do you find’s Kant’s conception of enlightenment compelling? Does an alternative view seem preferable? Why or why not?
- Do you see traces of Kant’s conception in contemporary discourse(s)? Is ours an enlightened age, an age of enlightenment, or neither? Why?
- What strikes you as being distinctive about Kant’s writing? What strikes you as being distinctive about philosophical methodology? What is your sense of how the disciplinary approach of philosophy compares with others?
We welcome all questions, comments, and criticisms that may arise.
Valentina Ricci received a M.A. and a PhD from the University of Padua (Italy), where she focused on German idealism and specifically on the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel. She published articles on Hegel’s psychology and on the Phenomenology of Spirit, and co-edited a volume on the notion of recollection in Hegel’s philosophy. After moving to UC Irvine for her second Ph.D., she started working on social and political philosophy as well, and wrote her second dissertation on the ontology and ethics of violence. Valentina has strong interests in feminist philosophy and critical race theory, hence her emphasis on the themes of gender and race in this lecture.
Dan Siakel received his bachelor’s degree (with honors) and first Master’s degree from the University of Chicago, then a Master’s degree and Ph.D. from UCI, all in the discipline of philosophy. His research focuses on issues in metaphysics, philosophy of mind, early modern philosophy, the history of 20th-century philosophy, and, more recently, Shambhala Buddhism and Meditation. Dan’s pedagogical interests have found expression in his capacities as a Senior Pedagogical Fellow for UCI’s Center for Engaged instruction and more recently as a Pedagogical Fellow for the Andrew W. Mellon Teaching Institute.
I was “enlightened” by the idea of how an author can contradict what they advocate for merely by their demographics. Before joining the Friday Forum, I did not have any acknowledgement of Kant’s racist and sexist commentaries. Being educated about this, I now realize it is important to understand an author’s stance on certain topics. ALTHOUGH, this shouldn’t be a complete reason not to give the individual an opportunity to listen out. It is necessary to be open-minded of the different point of views that people hold and gradually utilize that information to understand how it influences them in other areas.
The question of Enlightenment was a very broad topic that was brought together well. I enjoyed the binary between Kant’s and Rousseau’s ideas about human nature and philosophy. It was very interesting to see how someone who regarded Rousseau so highly and his values and thoughts developed his own ideas so different from his role model. Their ideas almost seemed to oppose one another completely but in a sense this further supports their points of having their own ideas and thinking for themselves.
It was also very interesting to see how enlightened thinkers still hold biases and subjugate those who they feel is less than. I always held the belief that Enlightened thinkers are supposed to see the value and equality in all humans but seeing Kant’s racist and sexist remarks left a bad taste in my mouth.
The Friday Forum opened up some key thoughts about enlightenment and Kant’s definition of it. Kant argues that enlightenment is using our own knowledge to think for ourselves and that criticism is necessary for a world to have freedom. I admit that when Professor Ricci showed evidence of Kant’s racism and sexism I was shocked to find that such a philosopher with great ideas could have such a narrow way of thinking. He fails to be credible in his answer to “What is Enlightenment” if he has prejudice to other races and even to woman. I do not believe we should discard his work because of his personal beliefs. Although he contradicts his ideas with his beliefs, he is at least contributing to the world something that sparks others interest and ideas. I agree with Kant when he states that enlightenment is a slow progress. In present day, we still face many of the problems that were seen in Kant’s time such as racism and sexism but in smaller quantities. We haven’t fully eradicated the belief that one race is superior than another (take a look at the black lives matter issue) or that women are equal to men but we can acknowledge that these beliefs are wrong. Slowly we, as a society are coming to accept new ideas and values to replace the outdated ones and that is progress.
One particular notion from the speakers that stood out to me was the idea that Kant and Rousseau’s work have become “a big part of canon in philosophy”. Before this lecture, I expected philosophy to be a topic that derived from people who use logic and critical thinking without any bias to form their claims. But after this lecture and the mentioning of Kant seeming particularly racist and sexist, it raises the question as to whether or not other famous people who contributed to this philosophical canon also have any prejudices or biases behind them that could influence the canon in a negative way. Enlightenment ideas should be derived from evidence and claims that arise without any bias so that individuals can develop their own opinions based on this, what should be, pure and unprejudiced information. This lecture made me aware of the significance of where the information about the enlightenment comes from, and who it comes from.
During the forum, I found Kant’s ideas very contradicting because Rousseau and Kant both share the same belief that freedom is one of the central concepts of practical philosophy. They also show a great emphasis on individualism and self- determination, but all of this is contradicted in Kant’s works. One of Kant’s great works “Observation on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime” is an example of the sexist and racist ideas of Kant. This is very contradicting to his ideas of individualism and freedom because in his works, he mentions that women are only fit to be wives rather than treating them as individuals. Kant and Rousseau as well as other enlightenment philosophers had racist and sexist views that would be looked down on in contemporary society, but their ideas should not be completely discarded. Leaving behind some of Kant’s great ideas due to his racist and sexist views would be too extreme, but we shouldn’t ignore the fact that he was a racist and sexist rather we should analyze how his views affected his works.
What I got out of this forum was that if Kant was a philosopher of his time and that he, along with Rousseau, continue to inspire the philosophers of our time, that Kant is being unreasonable when saying that he has these prejudices against people of color and to also say that men are above women. My question is “How can Kant consider himself to be enlightened when he has these prejudice and sexist ideals?” When I heard the quote mentioning how man should spend more time on becoming a more perfect man, and a women a wife, I came to the conclusion that I shouldn’t be reading anything coming from a man who himself hasn’t left this old idea of men being better than women. Obviously, then my post would stop there since his beliefs are against my own personal beliefs, but instead this man, Kant, isn’t too far from having the same ideals of that of the man of today. There’s still prejudice against people of color and it’s actually playing a major part in today’s society. There’s too much to talk about diving into this topic, but to put it concisely, Kant was talking to the people of his time, and we as a modern day audience would not understand the mindset of the society or individual of his time that he was trying to reach out to. That’s something I kept in mind as I read the article on Kant.
Both lecturers made intriguing points I had never thought of or been exposed to. One of these points was in the beginning when Dr. Siakel defines how Kant and Rousseau define minority. In modern day terms it is defined as the smaller part of a whole, for example when referring to ethnicities. However, in this context it is defined as a disability or the inability to use reason. I think it is interesting to examine the two different definitions for the same word. Is this to demonstrate that there was a minority of people who were unable to use reason? I also think this idea of individually attained enlightenment versus collective enlightenment is interesting. Kant believes that individual enlightenment is difficult to obtain because ones reason is dependent on their social environment. If their environment is not enlightened, then how can the individual learn to be enlightened? I believe that this also relates to the point of happiness being related to ones freedom. In my opinion, if you must rely on society to be enlightened, then are you truly free? Do people create their own ideas or are they just spin-offs off of what society already has set in place? There are many interesting points being made by these philosophers and many questions that rise from their views.
While I read Kant and watched the forum, I was a bit confused and didn’t quite understand his ideas because many times he contradicts himself. I found it interesting how he is racist and sexist and how is ideas seem that they target everyone but in fact, they are only aimed for his type of people. How are we as an audience supposed to give him credit and consider his arguments valid when they are coming from a man who does not believe that every human being is equal. At first I thought that Kant was credible and that his ideas were good, but after finding out that he is racist and sexist, my mind changed. This does not mean that he shouldn’t be studied. In my opinion, his ideas should be adjusted in a way that equality can be promoted.
I thought it was interesting how Dr. Daniel Siekel pointed out Kant’s viewpoint that attaining Enlightenment can result in people “mindlessly adopting prejudices without testing it out for themselves.” It is fairly contradicting because he proceeds with Kant’s ridiculous viewpoints on females versus males as well as racial tendencies – he seems to be more inclined towards male dominance rather than viewing women also as intellectuals. Similarly, he is geared more towards the white race as seen when he states that the “white race possesses all motivating forces and talents…” From a contemporary perspective, this surprised me because it exemplifies the white racial dominance that occurred back in history. Although it is less prominent today, the fact that it existed back then still generates a feeling of tension and inequality. Also, the quote from slide 11 of the powerpoint stating “Man should become more perfect as a man, and the woman as a wife” (Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime) struck me because living in this “age of enlightenment” (21), one does not usually express their viewpoints in such a way that would provoke the reader/audience. I find it somewhat infuriating because these viewpoints are not agreeable. Although these viewpoints are questionable, Kant continues to be a philosopher that one refers back to.
Dr. Ricci presented an interesting side of Kant. The fact that he was both racist and sexist is new to me. Yet still this information doesn’t change my views of Kant’s work, however it opened my eyes to the other side of Kant. His views follow his own model of enlightenment, that he is breaking free from a mold, or creating one by being the father of racism. The ideas he held are actually very surprising to me because of the heavily romanticized way the enlightenment is taught. His whole mindset of reading Rousseau yet not following his teachings is also interesting to me. But as a whole I feel as though while Kant may hold some non kosher ideas his work still has much significance, and should not be disregarded.
Professor Ricci mentioned that some people believe that Kant is one of the founding fathers of modern scientific racism, which really surprised me as i was watching. I did not even consider the time period of the Enlightenment, and how racism and sexism were common beliefs. If the thoughts of Kant were expressed today, they would not be as revolutionary because today’s society is more just than in comparison. People today are more aware of the patriarchy and racial inequalities while, during the Enlightened era, it was not even considered anything but normal. I would usually see this as a problem, but women and people of color have constantly been unequal in society, and we still face that struggle today. I would not dismiss Kant’s beliefs because of the time, but I am more understanding of the era and the peoples views. Despite the exclusions involved in Kant’s work, his ideas were advanced for his time and they still hold value. It makes me wonder what would be considered ‘Enlightened’ thoughts in modern society.
In order to be enlightened, one must break free from the shackles instilled in our minds that became chained up from the “herd-mentality” many individuals still posses today. This rids of individualism and doing what you think is right, not what the majority think is right. It is necessary to recognize that being individualistic is something we should not take for granted, being that others in another part of the world may not have that same basic freedom. With freedom, however, it forms a thin line between what you can do and what you should not do. This is not good in that we are given a great amount of freedom in this country to be also using it for unacceptable reasons and/or motives. This ideal contradicts to having a much more accepting society. I personally found it interesting seeing how Kant himself would be considered not enlightened based on his own interpretations and reasons on being enlightened. Then again, he did live in a different era that led him to think what he was doing and saying was socially acceptable in comparison to contemporary society. One point made in this forum that I found interesting was when it was mentioned that Kant believed that reason is innate, or born with, while Rousseau believed that reason can be acquired. I more personally agree with the latter being that reasoning can be ever-changing in this progressive world we live in. People who are hard-headed stand by their values and opinions which may hurt others and is what we ultimately do not wish on others. It is therefore appropriate to recognize perspective because what one person may not see as a a right thing to do, another might see it as the only way to act.
To discredit a piece of literary merit because of racial and sexist comments seems a little overboard, especially since we as a society have had so much focus on the topic throughout history. If we discredited every literary work that had some form of sexism and racism, we would have a lot less literature to take into account. However, when reading a work with these kind of ideas, one cannot simply glaze over them. They are written the way they are because the author wanted them to exist, and that cannot be ignored. To specifically zone in on a particular idea, Kant quite frequently makes sexist and racist comments; however, Rousseau (also a sexist and racist) makes the claim that all society will eventually become enlightened if reason is free. The problem that I see here, is that if Rousseau and Kant want to restrict certain people in society, how was society supposed to somehow reach enlightenment. Women obviously were seen as inferior and therefore there use of reason was looked down upon, so in result, reaching a collectively attained enlightenment is highly unlikely.
Before attending the forum I held the view that the enlightenment was beneficial development in human history. This was probably from my only exposure to enlightenment concepts being a superficial introduction within my history classes. The ideas that Professor Ricci presented today helped me to develop a more balanced personal opinion on the enlightenment than what I previously had. Her criticism of the sexist and racist biases held by the enlightenment thinkers made me begin to question whether they should be included in the modern philosophical canon. Personally, I think that a person’s bias and beliefs are very closely intertwined with their work. Hence, I believe it would be very difficult or even impossible to separate Kant’s “good” points has from his “bad” points. On the other hand, discrediting a philosopher’s work as completely invalid because of the differences their ideology and modern ideology is unreasonable.
Why is individual enlightenment so difficult to attain according to Kant? Numerous people in society are now adopting prejudices because they are unable to think for themselves. As Mr. Siakel expressed, “Enlighment is the human being’s emergence from his self-incurred minority.” This particular topic of discussion was brought to my attention in the forum as I began to think about the society we live in today and how individuals are easily prejudiced in order to avoid uncertainty. They elude themselves from uncertainty because it produces discomfort and the individual chooses to base their quick judgments upon the first piece of information that crosses their face. We now live in a dangerous reality to which the majority are influenced by others’ depiction of disputes among the country, rather than private reason or the ability to understand a particular argument without direction from another. People are too dependent on the obvious information handed to them rather than taking into consideration any contradictions or different perspectives, and exercising the development of your own individual mind.
I have to be honest, I was incredible frustrated while reading and learning about Kant’s work. Kant, just like Rousseau, discusses philosophical concepts that constantly contradict with his use of paradoxes. Both of these philosophers emphasize individualism and individual thinking, that people should have their own way of thinking. Kant’s idea of self conception explains that self concept should not be formed by opinions of others but rather generated by how we see ourselves. However, these ideas contradict his later argument that individually stained enlightenment is unlikely and difficult. It makes me wonder, how does an enlightened thinker like himself be able to possess such thoughts but not reflect those thoughts into his everyday life? Is there a specific reason as to why he does this? Is it purposeful? It seems as though he creates these paradoxes in order to give excuse for his actions. Perhaps it’s of his time that allows his sexism and racism to be overlooked, but it doesn’t seem to make sense that he became one of the fathers of racism while preaching his radical thoughts. From my point of view, he was essentially able to possess thoughts to show his genius but wasn’t strong enough, or cared too much about, society to practice them actively.
I believe that we live in an enlightened age, where we need to take these philosophical teachings to use and enhance them in our society, even if these philosophers didn’t entirely do that themselves. There is a reason why these philosophical thoughts have been passed down. We have much to learn from those before us, which gives us knowledge to constantly grow and improve ourselves.
Before listening to this presentation, I, like many of my peers, had no prior knowledge that Kant held these racist and sexist beliefs that white men were superior to all other races and women’s only role in society was to be a ‘perfect wife’. However ,Kant and Rosseau are both very influential philosophers of the past, and their works have and still greatly do impact our modern philosophical perspectives. It is unfair to discredit all of their writings based on a single flawed belief in their ideology. It was not until fairly recently that society underwent a large-scale feminist change, and the prominent figures of the past will still be influential despite changes in contemporary thought.
On page 18 of Kant’s “What is Enlightenment”I found it very interesting that Kant makes a claim that one cannot possibly reach enlightenment without pursuing complete freedom, one that does not include just a revolution, because ” a revolution may well bring about a feeling off of personal despotism and avaricious tyrannical oppression, but never a true reform in one’s way of thinking, instead new prejudices will serve just as well as old ones to harness the great unthinking masses.” After reading this, it immediately made me think of the U.S.’s very own revolution, and especially of the prejudices that we have today such as systemic and institutionalized racism, and once upon a time, a woman’s inability to vote. As a result, it lead me to believe ultimately that what Kant is trying to convey to the readers of what is required to become enlightened, contradicts what he says himself, as he speaks of women not even being capable of reaching enlightenment, I think that it is also possible to say that Kant himself has not yet reached enlightenment as well, since he also holds prejudice views that ultimately came from a revolution within itself and the society that he let shape his views.
I found the most interesting concept discussed in the reading and lecture to be the hypocrisy of Kant (and Rousseau as well) when considering the racist, sexist and classist undertones in a piece written by a philosopher that claims “great enlightened thinkers should encourage people to think in a certain way, rather than thinking a certain thing.” I actually really liked this idea itself, because it encourages individual thought rather than encouraging people to conform to what Kant refers to as the “minority.” A variety of perspectives and opinions is important for encouraging healthy discourse and intellectual growth in society. Individuals need to discover their own ways of thinking without outside forces influencing them. This idea is one of Kant’s main arguments. I couldn’t help but wonder, then, how a man who believes this could fail so miserably in keeping his viewpoint unbiased in the passage where he includes the generalized claim about “the entire fair sex.” I remember rereading that sentence several times, making sure I understood Kant’s intent correctly. His sexist conception of women having no desire to achieve independent thought is stated with such conviction that it sounds like an indisputable fact. Though it is important to consider the historical context behind Kant’s belief’s, I can’t believe that no exceptions to this generalization existed even in his old-fashioned society. So ultimately, Kant’s inclusion of this sexist remark functions only to make his readers think a certain thing – that all women are in the “minority”. According to his own philosophy, Kant has just broken a rule that should be followed by great thinkers.
One of the things that intrigues me most is the effect of Rousseau’s writing. After Rousseau’s discourse won the prize of the Academy of the Dijon in the year 1950, he became a celebrity (a state that he despises) and his works were left to influence philosophers and philosophes, notably Kant. Kant would later be seen as one of the founding fathers of racism. Most importantly, this circles back as to why the Académie des sciences et belles lettres de Dijon decided to reward Rousseau with a gold medallion. Rousseau himself openly admits that his work “is at best mediocre” and that is he is “running head on into everything that men admire today.” So what did the literary and scientific circle of Rousseau’s time found admirable that some modern critics do not? Was it for his unorthodox ideas? And was it because they were admirable for opposing the norm or were they considered legitimate beliefs that could be accepted by society? Or was it for skillful rhetoric? Or the paradox that he questions rhetoric with rhetoric? The question of whether Rousseau is to be honored or shamed for his works is up to the critic, but he is without a doubt an important influence on modern society.
Although I would like to believe that we have significantly evolved since Kant’s age of enlightenment, the vices in his time are still quite prevalent in ours today. The dominance of social media in our society allows us to have easier access to more information and a broader perspective on foreign ideas, yet the liberation of prejudice and superstition—denoted to be Kant’s conception of enlightenment—are undoubtedly still far from our reach, not to say that society at large continuously strives towards this objective. Therefore, I believe we are still in the age of enlightenment, in the process of becoming an enlightened age, though this may also be a never-ending, or at least an extended journey, as Kant himself contradicts his works by identifying women as the “fair sex”, a clear act of sexism.
It intrigues me to see how Kant creates a paradox in his ideas. He first talks about how freedom is the way to go for enlightenment and then at the end, he said “argue as much as you will and about much as you will; only obey!” This line is very contradictory because how do you argue and agree with someone at the same time. I thought that his idea about enlightenment was interesting because freedom will open up the person, but in order to be enlightened they need to find it themselves. We live in a world were it is fine to be dependent on others, but sometimes we are too dependent and it stops us from discovering ourselves. If there is no one to keep a person constricted then they will eventually be enlightened.
I’ll admit before I attended this lecture, it did not strike me odd that there are racism and sexism within these philosophical writings. My background in these writings was that it was glossed over and never addressed more subjects than the minimum. Thus I found it interesting about how Enlightenment was a bit more glorified and romanticized in high school textbooks as opposed to these university lectures and research that studies the depth of these texts. What captivates my attention is the role of women or Kant’s opinion of women. According to Professor Ricci, women held a very small role (as usual during that era) and to be mocked for their lack of ability to be intelligent. If my memory serves correctly, “Madame Geoffirn’s Salon” depicted of women participating in a philosophical social, and there are males who supported these women, which begs the question: Were most Enlightenment thinkers have patriarchal views? Was it frowned upon to support and encourage women to become intelligent? Their writings would encourage citizens to think freely and independently from perceived knowledge (e.g. The Roman Catholic Church), yet some of their opinions would not elevate anyone else’s intelligence but only rich, old white men’s intelligence. From a contemporary (female) perspective, Kant would encourage disagreement but would it be hypocritical if he does not want someone (e.g. his wife) to disagree with him? Would it be unproductive and decrease evolution if he only wants white men to disagree?
Enlightenment is defined as “the liberation from superstition and prejudice”, yet Kant seems to found some of his ideas on prejudice. His prejudices make sense for his time and place, but his outlook would be following the herd mentality of an 18th-century European man. His beliefs were influenced by others, even though both Rousseau and Kant emphasized the importance of individualism.
I do feel that the importance of individualism is very important today, and preached constantly. Thinking for oneself is said to be a key to success, but in a way the idea of individualism has become a popular belief of society.
As much as I’d love for us to exist in an enlightened age, or even in an age of enlightenment, I am afraid that society today has distanced itself from reaching either. I very much agree with the belief of individualism that Kant and Rousseau emphasize, and I personally believe that too many individuals in this age give in to herd mentality. Even worse is that many “herds” of today promote unnecessary violence in an era of unprecedented freedom to act and speak as we wish. In addition, instead of understanding the importance of a separation between the public and private use of reason, as explained by Kant, many people now discard their private use of reason in an effort to rebel against structure and order which are necessary in promoting a universal enlightenment.
I am really fascinated by Valentina’s critique of Kant’s enlightenment work. Like my fellow commenters, I was never aware of the racist and sexist foundations of Kant’s ideologies. Indeed, Kant’s prejudice contradicts his initial plea for transcending “prejudice” in order to reach “enlightenment.” By modern perspective, Kant’s argument is hypocritical because he singles out women as the “fair sex” and promotes the insular notion that women are purely domesticated wives in society.
In pointing out Kant’s contradictions, Valentina upholds the spirit of philosophy—challenging what is presumed to be accepted beliefs. As a result, the intellectual debate of whether to include or neglect many of the prejudiced works of Kant and his contemporaries arises. I still believe that their work should be studied. However, the work should be adjusted to its changed context in modern society. In other words, I believe that the educated should work to document this paradigm shift for the sake of informing future generations.
To quote the Tweet that I so eagerly posted as soon I stepped out of the Friday Forum Lecture, “I Kant deal with the racist or sexist dispositions of the enlightenment thinkers.” Play on words aside, I find it necessary to underscore Dr. Ricci’s critique of Kant’s hypocrisy, but I would argue that we must not reject the philosophical works of Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Descartes, Kant, Mill, Marx, and the other founding fathers (patriarchal term used ironically deliberately) of philosophy. First, although their remarks upset contemporary readers, it is important to note that their views draw parallel to the customary racial thinking of their days. Moreover, even in twenty first century America, it seems as if some will respect and even support individuals who express far more extreme and bigoted views on minorities. One of those individuals is in the running to hold one of the most revered positions in history! I am delighted that Dr. Siakel and Dr. Ricci brought to light the deleterious facets of the Enlightenment thinkers’ ideologies; however, we ought to utilize our contemporary sense of reason and remember to read philosophical texts with a wary eye because the scholars of today have quite a lot to learn from the thinkers of yesterday.
HK
Before this lecture, I was not aware of Kant’s racist and sexist views. Now that I know this, I think an alternate view of enlightenment is necessary. If judged according to Kant’s own standards, Kant himself would be not be considered enlightened. How then can we hope to understand enlightenment if we are learning from one who is self condemned by their own work as unenlightened? What authority does he have to be making the claims and arguments that he does? I think that these are more than sufficient grounds for disregarding Kant’s work and looking elsewhere for insight on enlightenment.
I found it interesting how Kant admired Rousseau and said that he learned to honor mankind from reading his work yet their opinions differ. When Rousseau discusses inequality in his second discourse he’s criticizing it and explaining why the idea of owning property is so bad because of all the gateways it opens for things like jealousy and stealing. Even though, Kant says that he respects Rousseau he doesn’t agree that inequality is a negative thing and he in fact encourages racism as he believes the white race is superior to all others. Although its not a great mentality to have, it shows how philosophers approach other’s work as they question everything.
One particular topic discussed that struck me as being both, intriguing and complex, was how some of Kant’s actions contradicted his writings. This implies that though Philosophy is concerned with the ‘ideal’ world, the study itself is performed by less-than-perfect individuals. Though Philosophy requires one to question common axioms that form the very basis of most modern studies, ‘philosophers’ are often given to the common conceptions of their time. The study of Philosophy, thus, can never be free of the personal opinion of the philosopher and is flawed for this reason, even though the subject itself pursues a world without flaws.
Another thing I found interesting was the ‘debate’ mentioned about Kant’s writings: whether they should be abandoned or edited. In my opinion, thoughts are an extension of personality, which pervades every aspect of one’s life. If a single writing reveals a flawed idea, it is very likely that the same opinion colors every writing of the same author. Thus, the writings need to be abandoned altogether.