(Universal/University) „ethics“ with Kant, Hume, Hegel, Rousseau et al.?

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

2 „Cultural“ studies, „ethics“, and KANT!?

2.1 Introduction with BERNHARD, KEHLMANN, LEVINAS et al?

2.2 Frank STERN, „PINK“, „Advanced Chemistry“?

2.3 Prof Dr Frank STERN, KANT, and Orhan Küçükyılmaz?

2.4 „Tenor(s)“ of the study

3 („Holy“?) Bartolomé DE LAS CASAS

3.1 Who was DE LAS CASAS?

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

4 Juan LATINO (Juan DE SESA)

4.1 Who was Juan LATINO ?

4.2 LATINO: unknown to KANT?!

5 Anton Wilhelm AMO

5.1 Who was Anton Wilhelm AMO?

5.2 What to learn from Anton Wilhelm AMO?

5.3 Anton Wilhelm AMO and „universities“ today?

5.4 Anton Wilhelm AMO and his emigration?

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

5.6 NTEP on AMO and implications?

5.7 AMO: unknown to KANT!?

6 David HUME

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

6.2 Gilles DELEUZE on HUME?

6.3 HAYEK and „unser weiser Führer“ David HUME?

6.4 DAIRE and MOLINARI on HUME?

6.5 Gerhard STREMINGER on HUME?

6.6 DER NEUE BROCKHAUS (1959) on HUME?

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

7.1 Definition of „Rasse“ with BROCKHAUS?

7.2 Definition of „Races of men“ by SHAPIRO/PARSONS?

7.3 Definition of „Rasse“ with BROCKHAUS?

7.4 Definition of „Rassismus“ with BROCKHAUS?

8 KANT on „ethics“, „aesthetics“, and „race“

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

8.2 KANT on „Frauenzimmer“ (women) anno 1766 (1764)?

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

8.4 KLEIN on KANT’s „scharfe Beobachtungsgabe“?

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

8.6 Patrick FRIERSON on KANTs „Erhabenes“?

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

8.8 GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE on KANT?

8.9 VOLPI/NIDA-RÜMELIN on KANT?

8.10 PONGS (1976) on KANT?

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

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

8.13 (Sir) Isaiah BERLIN on KANT?

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

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

8.16 WIMMER on KANT and Wilhelm Anton AMO?

8.17 Helmut FUCHS on KANT?

8.18 Christof MÜLLER on KANT?

8.19 Nikolaus FRANKE on KANT?

8.20 Anna GAMPER on KANT ?

8.21 Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT?

8.22 PERTHOLD/SPITZER/WALLNER on KANT?

8.23 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT?

8.24 Gerhard LUF on KANT?

8.25 Again: Gerhard LUF on KANT?

8.26 Alexander SOMEK on KANT, HEGEL and ROUSSEAU?

8.27 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on KANT?

8.28 Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT?

8.29 PERTHOLD/SPITZER/WALLNER on KANT?

8.30 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT?

8.31 Alexander SOMEK on KANT, HEGEL and ROUSSEAU?

8.32 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on KANT?

9 KANT on „Frauenzimmer“ (women)

9.1 In the wake of a „mir san mir“-mentality?

9.2 Therese Frey STEFFEN on KANT?

9.3 Again: KANT on „Frauenzimmer“ (women) anno 1766 ?

9.4 Again: Therese Frey STEFFEN on KANT?

10 HEGEL

10.1 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on HEGEL?

10.2 COOTER/ULEN on HEGEL?

10.3 Franz Martin WIMMER on HEGEL?

11 Karl LARENZ and the NS-regime

11.1 Karl LARENZ on KANT?

11.2 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on LARENZ?

11.3 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on LARENZ?

11.4 Thomas HOEREN on „Ur-Vater“ LARENZ?

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

12 Conclusion and „Outlook“?

13 Bibliography

Research Objectives and Themes

This work provides a critical, fact-bound, and scientific investigation into the presentation of canonical white, male philosophers—such as Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, and David Hume—within academic teaching environments in Austria, questioning the uncritical "glorification" of these figures despite their documented racist, misogynist, and exclusionary writings.

• The intersection of academic teaching and the omission of "dark aspects" in the biographies of celebrated philosophers.
• A critical examination of Immanuel Kant’s writings on race and women, and their influence on pedagogical practices.
• The recovery and inclusion of forgotten figures like Anton Wilhelm Amo and Juan Latino within historical and philosophical discourse.
• Critique of the "Zeitgeist" defense used to excuse exclusionary views in historical texts.
• The responsibility of legal and ethics professors to provide a comprehensive, critical representation of historical thinkers to future legal professionals.

Excerpt from the Book

Summary of Chapters

Introduction: This chapter introduces the critique of academic teaching styles at universities, where influential thinkers like Kant or Hegel are presented as "semi-divine" without critical reflection on their problematic views.

„Cultural“ studies, „ethics“, and KANT!?: An examination of how "cultural studies" and philosophical ethics often maintain a positive, exclusionary narrative surrounding major Western philosophers.

(„Holy“?) Bartolomé DE LAS CASAS: A critique of De Las Casas' historical role and the contradiction between his human rights advocacy and his involvement in the exploitation of African people.

Juan LATINO (Juan DE SESA): Reintroduces the life and work of Juan Latino, an overlooked 16th-century African scholar, contrasting his achievements with the prejudices of his era.

Anton Wilhelm AMO: Focuses on the life and intellectual contributions of Anton Wilhelm Amo, a pioneering African philosopher in Germany, while highlighting his systematic exclusion from current philosophical curricula.

David HUME: Analyzes the uncritical presentation of David Hume in academic settings, particularly pointing out the omission of his racist sentiments.

Race/“Rasse“; „Rassengesetze“; Racism/“Rassismus“: Analyzes the definitions and historical usage of terms related to race and racism, questioning the limitations of their application in academic literature.

KANT on „ethics“, „aesthetics“, and „race“: A comprehensive critical review of Kant's own writings, specifically his racist and misogynist statements, and the subsequent "glorification" of his work by later scholars.

KANT on „Frauenzimmer“ (women): Specifically addresses Kant's derogatory and gendered views regarding women, questioning their place in current educational materials.

HEGEL: Examines Hegel’s views on property, retaliation, and human nature, and criticizes the common avoidance of his dark aspects in legal-philosophical education.

Karl LARENZ and the NS-regime: Investigates the legacy of Karl Larenz, specifically his involvement with National Socialist ideology, and criticizes his "glorification" in modern academic and media discourse.

Conclusion and „Outlook“?: Summarizes the necessity for a more critical, transparent, and inclusive approach to teaching law, philosophy, and history at universities.

Bibliography: Provides a comprehensive list of the academic and primary sources used throughout the study.

Keywords

Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, David Hume, Anton Wilhelm Amo, Human Rights, Racism, Philosophy of Law, Enlightenment, Academic Ethics, University Education, Critical Pedagogy, Colonialism, Antisemitism, Karl Larenz, Intellectual Honesty.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the core premise of this work?

The work challenges the uncritical and often "glorifying" manner in which canonical Western philosophers—specifically Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, and David Hume—are presented to students at universities in Austria.

What are the primary thematic areas?

The study focuses on ethics, legal philosophy, the history of ideas, racism in classical texts, the exclusion of non-European thinkers, and the role of academic figures in perpetuating these exclusionary narratives.

What is the primary goal of this research?

The primary aim is to initiate a critical re-evaluation of philosophical curricula, advocating for a more transparent, honest, and fact-based engagement with the works of major thinkers, including their documented racist and sexist prejudices.

Which scientific methods are employed?

The author uses a critical, fact-bound, and analytical approach, drawing on primary source citations from the philosophers in question, as well as an analysis of secondary academic texts, lecture scripts, and biographical literature.

What does the main body of the work address?

It provides detailed critiques of specific philosophers and legal scholars, exposing their negative, exclusionary, and racist "thoughts," while contrasting these with the positive and often "semi-divine" image they maintain in academic discourse.

Which keywords best characterize this publication?

Key terms include: Immanuel Kant, Philosophy of Law, Racism, Academic Ethics, Intellectual Honesty, Anton Wilhelm Amo, Critical Pedagogy, and Enlightenment.

How does the author characterize the "Zeitgeist" argument?

The author argues that citing the "spirit of the time" (Zeitgeist) is an insufficient and often invalid argument used to excuse or ignore the racist and misogynistic writings of historical philosophers.

What specific impact does the author hope for regarding law students?

The author hopes that law students will move beyond "convergent" or unquestioning acceptance of established authorities and instead adopt a more "divergent," critical thinking style that questions the moral integrity of historical figures in the context of their own writings.