„Who was Anton Wilhelm Amo?“ – „Remapping the Jungle“ vs. „Vom faulen Holze lebend“?!

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction with BERNHARD, KEHLMANN et al?

1.2 „Tenor(s)“ of the study

2 („Holy“?) Bartolomé DE LAS CASAS

2.1 Who was DE LAS CASAS?

2.2 DE LAS CASAS and human rights „development“!?

3 Juan LATINO (Juan DE SESA)

3.1 Who was Juan LATINO ?

3.2 LATINO: unknown to KANT?!

4 Anton Wilhelm AMO

4.1 Who was Anton Wilhelm AMO?

4.2 AMO and the „Ding an sich“ (noumenon)?

4.3 NTEP on AMO and implications?

4.4 AMO: unknown to KANT!?

5 David HUME

5.1 „Enlightening“ David HUME at „WU WIEN“?

5.2 Gilles DELEUZE on HUME?

5.3 HAYEK and „unser weiser Führer“ David HUME?

5.4 DAIRE and MOLINARI on HUME?

5.5 Gerhard STREMINGER on HUME?

6 Race/“Rasse“; „Rassengesetze“; Racism/“Rassismus“

6.1 Definition of „Rasse“ with BROCKHAUS?

6.2 Definition of „Rasse“ with BROCKHAUS?

6.3 Definition of „Rassismus“ with BROCKHAUS?

7 Immanuel KANT

7.1 KANT on Africo-American people anno 1764 (1766)?

7.2 Again: KANT on Afro-americans anno 1766 (1764)?

7.3 KLEIN on KANT’s „scharfe Beobachtungsgabe“?

7.4 Wolbert G. C. SMIDT on KANTs „Erhabenes“?

7.5 Patrick FRIERSON on KANTs „Erhabenes“?

7.6 Monika FIRLA on KANT and ‚Zeitgeist‘-fiction?

7.7 GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE on KANT?

7.8 VOLPI/NIDA-RÜMELIN on KANT?

7.9 PONGS (1976) on KANT?

7.10 KLOPFER (2008) on KANT and „Pietismus“!?

7.11 KANT, Afro-americans and „phlogiston“ anno 1785?

7.12 (Sir) Isaiah BERLIN on KANT?

7.13 BERLIN on KANT‘s „scharfer und äußerst klarer Verstand“?

7.14 KANT: „Meister der Architektonik der Vernunft“(GADAMER)?

7.15 WIMMER on KANT and Wilhelm Anton AMO?

7.16 Helmut FUCHS on KANT?

7.17 Christof MÜLLER on KANT?

7.18 Nikolaus FRANKE on KANT?

7.19 Anna GAMPER on KANT ?

7.20 Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT?

7.21 PERTHOLD/SPITZER/WALLNER on KANT?

7.22 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT?

7.23 Gerhard LUF on KANT?

7.24 Again: Gerhard LUF on KANT?

7.25 Alexander SOMEK on KANT, HEGEL and ROUSSEAU?

7.26 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on KANT?

7.27 Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT?

7.28 PERTHOLD/SPITZER/WALLNER on KANT?

7.29 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT?

7.30 Alexander SOMEK on KANT, HEGEL and ROUSSEAU?

7.31 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on KANT?

8 HEGEL

8.1 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on HEGEL?

8.2 COOTER/ULEN on HEGEL?

8.3 WIMMER on HEGEL?

9 Karl LARENZ and the NS-regime

9.1 Karl LARENZ on KANT?

9.2 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on LARENZ?

9.3 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on LARENZ?

9.4 Thomas HOEREN on „Ur-Vater“ LARENZ?

9.5 „High quality“ ? - FAZ, HOEREN, and „Ur-Vater“ LARENZ?

10 Conclusion and „Outlook“?

11 Bibliography

Objectives and Topics

This work provides a critical and fact-based analysis of the philosophical foundations of Enlightenment thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, David Hume, and G.W.F. Hegel. The primary goal is to address the often-overlooked racist and anti-Semitic aspects in the writings of these "prime fathers" of philosophy, contrasting them with the contributions of contemporary and marginalized figures like Anton Wilhelm Amo and Juan Latino.

• The critical examination of the racist, chauvinist, and exclusionary texts by Immanuel Kant.
• The historical re-evaluation of figures such as Bartolomé de las Casas, Juan Latino, and Anton Wilhelm Amo.
• A critique of the current academic and university "glorification" of Enlightenment philosophers.
• The connection between historical philosophical concepts and the ideologies of the National Socialist regime.
• The analysis of how "human rights" and "universal" values were conceptually constrained during the Enlightenment era.

Excerpt from the book

Summary of Chapters

1 Introduction: This chapter outlines the study's objective to critically examine the often-positive presentation of major philosophers and introduces the central themes of the research.

2 („Holy“?) Bartolomé DE LAS CASAS: The chapter questions the sanctification of de las Casas and highlights his role regarding indigenous and African slave treatment.

3 Juan LATINO (Juan DE SESA): It introduces the life and work of Juan Latino, an important yet neglected scholar, and questions Kant’s potential lack of awareness regarding him.

4 Anton Wilhelm AMO: This section details the life of the Ghanaian-born philosopher Anton Wilhelm Amo and discusses his contributions to Enlightenment thought, often ignored by European academic institutions.

5 David HUME: The chapter explores the racist and pro-slavery views of David Hume, criticizing his contemporary academic presentation.

6 Race/“Rasse“; „Rassengesetze“; Racism/“Rassismus“: Provides definitions and critical context regarding racial discourse and the concept of racism as viewed through historical and modern encyclopedic definitions.

7 Immanuel KANT: This extensive chapter analyzes numerous texts and commentaries concerning Kant's racist, misogynist, and exclusionary statements, questioning his status as an infallible philosopher of universal human rights.

8 HEGEL: Examines Hegel's ideas on retaliation and property, while noting his dark legacy and the consequences his philosophy had for marginalized groups.

9 Karl LARENZ and the NS-regime: Investigates the legal philosophy of Karl Larenz and his involvement with National Socialist ideology, highlighting the dangers of academic glorification.

10 Conclusion and „Outlook“?: Summarizes the need for a more critical and fact-based approach to teaching philosophy and legal ethics in universities.

11 Bibliography: Lists the comprehensive range of sources and literature utilized throughout the scientific analysis.

Keywords

Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, David Hume, Enlightenment, Racism, Anti-Semitism, Anton Wilhelm Amo, Juan Latino, Human Rights, Karl Larenz, National Socialism, Legal Philosophy, Ethics, Colonialism, Critical Theory.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the fundamental objective of this work?

The work aims to perform a serious, fact-bound, and scientific analysis of the philosophical foundations of Enlightenment thinkers, specifically addressing the racist and exclusionary aspects of their writings that are rarely discussed in contemporary academia.

What are the central themes of the analysis?

The central themes include the critique of Enlightenment "prime fathers," the influence of their racist theories on history, the "semi-divinization" of these thinkers in current university curricula, and the exploration of neglected figures like Anton Wilhelm Amo.

What is the primary research question?

The study asks whether philosophers like Kant, Hegel, and Hume should remain undisputed role models in ethics and legal philosophy given their explicit racist and exclusionary statements, and why modern academia often suppresses these "dark sides."

Which scientific methods are applied?

The work employs a critical analysis of primary source texts, historical documentation, and a meta-analysis of how these philosophers are currently presented in academic literature and scripts.

What is the main focus of the middle chapters?

The middle chapters concentrate on specific philosopher case studies (Kant, Hegel, Hume, de las Casas) and the critical examination of modern academic commentaries that gloss over their racist and problematic statements.

Which keywords characterize this analysis?

The analysis is best characterized by keywords such as Critical Philosophy, Kantian Racism, Enlightenment Critique, Legal Ethics, and Academic Accountability.

Why is the "island-example" (Insel-Beispiel) by Kant significant in this context?

It is used to demonstrate Kant's rigid and, according to the author, counter-intuitive stance on the death penalty, which contradicts his popular image as a champion of universal human rights.

What specific critique is raised regarding Karl Larenz?

The work critiques the tendency of modern legal academic circles to "glorify" Larenz as an "Urvater" of German legal science while ignoring or minimizing his key role in developing and implementing Nazi-regime legal ideologies.