„Ich kenne Kant…“? - So called legal and business „ethics“ referring to Kant 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 So called „ethics“ versus „morals“

3.1 Definition of „ethics“

3.2 „Definition“ of „ethics“ by GMEINER?

3.3 „Definition“ of „Ethik“ by EDELBACHER?

3.4 „Definition“ of „Moral“ by NOLL?

3.5 „Ethics“ as distinguished from „morals“

4 („Holy“?) Bartolomé DE LAS CASAS

4.1 Who was DE LAS CASAS?

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

5 Juan LATINO (Juan DE SESA)

5.1 Who was Juan LATINO ?

5.2 LATINO: unknown to KANT?!

6 Anton Wilhelm AMO

6.1 Who was Anton Wilhelm AMO?

6.2 What to learn from Anton Wilhelm AMO?

6.3 Anton Wilhelm AMO and „universities“ today?

6.4 Anton Wilhelm AMO and his emigration?

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

6.6 NTEP on AMO and implications?

6.7 AMO: unknown to KANT!?

7 David HUME

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

7.2 Gilles DELEUZE on HUME?

7.3 HAYEK and „unser weiser Führer“ David HUME?

7.4 DAIRE and MOLINARI on HUME?

7.5 Gerhard STREMINGER on HUME?

7.6 DER NEUE BROCKHAUS (1959) on HUME?

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

8.1 Definition of „Rasse“ with BROCKHAUS?

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

8.3 Definition of „Rasse“ with BROCKHAUS?

8.4 Definition of „Rassismus“ with BROCKHAUS?

8.5 Definition of „Rassismus“ with KÖBLER

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

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

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

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

9.4 KLEIN on KANT’s „scharfe Beobachtungsgabe“?

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

9.6 Patrick FRIERSON on KANTs „Erhabenes“?

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

9.8 GRABNER-HAIDER/WEINKE on KANT?

9.9 VOLPI/NIDA-RÜMELIN on KANT?

9.10 PONGS (1976) on KANT?

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

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

9.13 (Sir) Isaiah BERLIN on KANT?

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

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

9.16 WIMMER on KANT and Wilhelm Anton AMO?

9.17 Helmut FUCHS on KANT?

9.18 Christof MÜLLER on KANT?

9.19 Nikolaus FRANKE on KANT?

9.20 Anna GAMPER on KANT ?

9.21 Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT?

9.22 PERTHOLD/SPITZER/WALLNER on KANT?

9.23 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT?

9.24 Gerhard LUF on KANT?

9.25 Again: Gerhard LUF on KANT?

9.26 Alexander SOMEK on KANT, HEGEL and ROUSSEAU?

9.27 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on KANT?

9.28 Fritz SCHEBECK on KANT?

9.29 PERTHOLD/SPITZER/WALLNER on KANT?

9.30 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on KANT?

9.31 Alexander SOMEK on KANT, HEGEL and ROUSSEAU?

9.32 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on KANT?

9.33 Hermann GLOCKNER on KANT?

9.34 GLOCKNER: KANT as „Lehrer der Humanität“?

9.35 KANDLHOFER in KOHL/OFNER/KARNER/HALPFER on KANT?

9.36 GLOCKNER and a „jugendlich-humane“ KANT?

10 KANT on „Frauenzimmer“ (women)

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

10.2 Therese Frey STEFFEN on KANT?

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

10.4 Again: Therese Frey STEFFEN on KANT?

11 HEGEL

11.1 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on HEGEL?

11.2 COOTER/ULEN on HEGEL?

11.3 Franz Martin WIMMER on HEGEL?

12 Karl LARENZ and the NS-regime

12.1 Karl LARENZ on KANT?

12.2 RÜPING/JEROUSCHEK on LARENZ?

12.3 Thomas OLECHOWSKI on LARENZ?

12.4 Thomas HOEREN on „Ur-Vater“ LARENZ?

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

13 Conclusion and „Outlook“?

Research Objectives & Topics

This work provides a critical and fact-based philosophical, historical, and intercultural analysis of the prevailing presentation of influential Western thinkers, particularly Immanuel Kant, within contemporary academic education. It challenges the common "white-washing" of historical figures who, despite being revered as universal moral authorities, often held and disseminated racist, misogynistic, and otherwise discriminatory views that are frequently omitted from ethics lectures and introductory legal studies.

• Critical examination of the "semi-divine" status of philosophers like Kant, Hegel, and Hume in academia.
• Analysis of the intersection between Enlightenment philosophy and colonial/racist ideologies.
• Highlighting the exclusion of non-European scholars like Anton Wilhelm Amo and Juan Latino from canonical philosophical discourse.
• Evaluation of the educational responsibility of universities in presenting a comprehensive and truthful account of philosophical texts.
• Critique of the "white-washing" practices in current legal and business ethics curricula.

Excerpt from the Book

Summary of Chapters

1 Introduction: This chapter highlights the tendency of universities to glorify "semi-divine" thinkers while omitting their racist or exclusionary views, arguing for a more critical approach in teaching.

2 „Cultural“ studies, „ethics“, and KANT!?: The section explores how prominent thinkers like Kant, Hegel, and Fichte are presented in academia and introduces the problematic "Tenor" of how these figures are typically treated.

3 So called „ethics“ versus „morals“: It examines definitions of ethics and morals through various academic authors, questioning the lack of clarity in contemporary educational definitions.

4 („Holy“?) Bartolomé DE LAS CASAS: The chapter investigates the historical role of Bartolomé de las Casas, questioning his status as a humanitarian in light of his colonial and slavery-related justifications.

5 Juan LATINO (Juan DE SESA): It introduces the figure of Juan Latino, an overlooked 16th-century African scholar, and questions why such figures remain unknown to Kant and the traditional academic canon.

6 Anton Wilhelm AMO: This section details the life and work of Anton Wilhelm Amo, emphasizing his intellectual achievements despite racial prejudice, and critiques his exclusion from university history.

7 David HUME: The chapter analyzes the "enlightened" presentation of David Hume, criticizing the omission of his racist sentiments in contemporary academic settings.

8 Race/“Rasse“; „Rassengesetze“; Racism/“Rassismus“: It provides an analysis of terminologies related to race and racism through encyclopedia definitions and critiques their contextual application.

9 KANT on „ethics“, „aesthetics“, and „race“: A comprehensive review of Kant’s racist and misogynistic writings, analyzing how various contemporary scholars interpret, gloss over, or ignore these dark aspects.

10 KANT on „Frauenzimmer“ (women): This chapter focuses specifically on Kant's sexist views on women and the critique of these views by scholars like Therese Frey Steffen.

11 HEGEL: The section critiques the treatment of Hegel in law and economics literature, specifically regarding his negative views and their influence on later historical events.

12 Karl LARENZ and the NS-regime: It addresses the controversial role of legal scholar Karl Larenz during the Nazi era and critiques his continued status as a celebrated "founding father" of German law.

13 Conclusion and „Outlook“?: The final chapter summarizes the necessity for a more critical, transparent, and ethically grounded approach to teaching philosophy, history, and law at modern universities.

Keywords

Immanuel Kant, Ethics, Racism, Enlightenment, Academia, Legal Philosophy, Anton Wilhelm Amo, Human Rights, White-washing, Critical Thinking, Moral, Colonialism, Georg Hegel, David Hume, Karl Larenz.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the fundamental objective of this work?

The work aims to provide a serious, fact-bound, and critical analysis of how influential Western philosophers are presented in university curricula, specifically exposing the omission of their racist and discriminatory views.

What are the primary thematic fields covered in the book?

The book covers legal philosophy, ethics, the history of the Enlightenment, colonial history, the critical examination of institutional "white-washing," and the biographies of excluded figures like Anton Wilhelm Amo.

What is the central research question?

The research questions the integrity of presenting historical philosophers like Kant and Hegel as "semi-divine" role models while simultaneously ignoring their documented racist, sexist, and insulting writings.

Which scientific methods are utilized?

The author employs a critical, fact-based textual analysis, examining historical documents, university curricula, and modern scholarly literature to reveal discrepancies between the "glorified" public image of these philosophers and their actual writings.

What is treated in the main body of the work?

The main body focuses on a detailed deconstruction of specific thinkers (Kant, Hegel, Hume, de las Casas) and contemporary scholars who write about them, documenting evidence of racism and the systemic failure of universities to address these topics.

Which keywords characterize the work?

Key concepts include institutional white-washing, critical philosophical inquiry, moral integrity, academic exclusion, and the re-evaluation of the Enlightenment legacy regarding human rights and racism.

How does the book analyze Kant's views on "universal" human rights?

The author contrasts Kant's theoretical advocacy for "universal" human rights with his specific, disparaging texts concerning Afro-American and Jewish individuals, arguing that these views are diametrically opposed and rarely addressed together in lectures.

What is the author’s stance on the professional integrity of legal scholars in Vienna?

The author expresses significant disappointment and sadness regarding the fact that prominent legal scholars and university instructors often omit critical aspects of historical thinkers, calling for a more honest and critical pedagogical approach.