Explorez tous les épisodes du podcast Kant's Philosophy

The philosopher does not do revealed theology which presupposes believe in some divine revelation, but tries to have cognition of God through reason alone. Here he is met with the difficulty of how the finite creature may grasp the infinite creator, and most of all with the danger of sliding into anthropomorphism.

Quote: 0:08

Rational theology: 0:49

The difficulty of the cognition of God and of anthropomorphism: 6:31

How God can be talked about: 19:15

Via eminentiae: 30:40

Via negationis: 48:33

Via analogiae: 1:09:45

The fields of rational theology: 1:38:18

Kant's architectonic: 1:44:12

Thanks: 2:03:41

The table of categories according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/table-of-categories-according-to-Kant.jpg

Overiew over metaphysics according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Metaphysics-according-to-Kant-scaled.jpg

The thinking faculty according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/faculty-of-thinking-according-to-Kant.jpg

Overview over theology according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/theology-according-to-Kant.png

Whoever wants to get more in depth concerning Kant's theology and its method should study the lectures on rational theology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_r0k1/mode/2up, his lectures on metaphysics: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant_d7g2/mode/2up also contain many remarks on rational theology (I am not aware of a free English translation of either).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

While religion is practical, theology is theoretical: A person's theology is the sum of the statements on God he considers to be true. These statements however theology can take from revelation or from reason. And here arises the conflict between the theological and the philosophical faculty on the way through which to gain cognition of God.

Quote: 0:08

The philosophy of religion is the crowning conclusion of Kant's philosophy: 0:29

The contemporary neglect of philosophy of religion: 9:46

Theology and religion: 24:29

For true religion, correct theology is helpful but not necessary: 29:35

Revealed theology and rational theology: 41:24

The conflict of the theological and the philosophical faculty: 53:47

Thanks: 1:26:18

Of theology and the conflict between the theological and the philosophical faculty Kant talks in the first section of his Conflict of Faculties (I could not find a free English translation online).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

The state of nature is a war of all against all. Only public right can create perpetual peace. There must be laws which secure for each his own, and these laws must be binding and enforced. States right is supposed to create peace between individuals, the right of nations is supposed to bring peace between states. But for such a states right and right of nations to be able to be established there first needs to be a global cosmopolitan right: There mustn't be total war of all against all after all, rather every human being must have a universal right of visitation. For only if someone who does not belong to a legal community und is not protected through the laws governing it, has the opportunity to at least offer joining it, can a legal community ever come into being in the first place.

Quote: 0:08

Public right and cosmopolitanism: 1:45

There must be a cosmopolitan right to hospitality: 10:44

Refugees: 27:27

Colonialism: 55:16

The significance of cosmopolitan right in the face of totalitarianism: 1:16:39

Thanks: 1:30:09

Cosmopolitan right Kant discusses in his text On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm as well as in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Philosophy can be understood according to the school concept and according to the world concept, Kant says. According to the school concept philosophy is a science. Before its concept can be explained in the three upcoming lectures, it therefore is necessary to first become clear about what science is. For Kant it is essentially: systematic cognition. Quote: 0:08 The importance of the concept of phlosophy for understanding philosophy: 1:20 Kant has a twofold concept of philosophy: 3:46 Philosophy according to the school concept: 6:25 1. Preliminary note: How definition of concepts is done: 7:50 2. Preliminary note: Empirical and logical division: 11:09 Especially the big and important concepts are usually not clear: 19:48 Difference between science and art: 22:54 The tasks of science: 32:38 Difference between scientific and common cognition: 37:40 Difference between rational science and historical scholarship: 1:03:09 A priori and a posteriori: 1:24:12 Difference between pure and applied sicnence: 1:46:00 The bridge from pure to applied science: 2:05:31 Kant's concept of science is unconsciously already ours: 2:21:36 According to this strict concept, only very little is actual knowledge: 2:30:03 Advice for aufklärung: What one grasps systematically (scientifically), can be remembered more easily: 2:36:36 Thanks: 2:43:37

Overiew over science according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Science-according-to-Kant.jpg

A complete overview of Kant's understanding of philosophy according to its school concept as well as its world concept can best be found in his lecture on philosophical encylopedia (Philosophische Enzyklopädie), which on top of that also outlines the basis of his critical philosophy and can be recommanded as a starting point, because it is both short and easy: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant/page/n9/mode/2up (I don't know of an English translation.) His understanding of science Kant explains in the preface to the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science: https://archive.org/details/kantsprolegomen00kantuoft/page/136/mode/2up The birdge from pure to applied science is the topic of the Opus Postumum: http://kant.korpora.org/Inhalt21.html / http://kant.korpora.org/Inhalt22.html (I don't know of an English translation.) I said that according to Kant cognition a posteriori can be generalised through induction and allegory - I should have said induction and ANALOGY however. I don't know why I kept using the wrong word when analogy is the same in German (Analogie), but I hereby want to point out this mistake.

I also want to repeate a remark that my very observant listener and supporter Garnau Klaufen made under the German video: I say that according to Kant there are three types of connections: Of a thing with its own attributes, subordination and coordination. This means that the concept of connection is divided into three concepts by Kant. Since in the same lecture I say that according to Kant logical divisions are always divisions into two (dichotomy), one could come to the wrong conclusion that this is an emperical division, as these, as I explain, can divide a thing or concept into more than two parts (polytomy). However, as I mention in the lecture, the three types of connections Kant bases on his table of categories where there are three types of relations (substance, causality, community). And these three categories are actually a result of a transcendental division - the type of division I didn't get into in this lecture but which actually always results in three parts (trichotomy). I well get further into the transcendental divisions and the categories in a later lectures but wanted to clear up possible misunderstandings right away: These three types of connection aren't a willful empirical division Kant makes, but a necessary transcendental one, meaning there can't be more or less.

Before I will speak about Kant's thinking in the upcoming lectures, I first want to give a frame for that and therefore say some words about his life. Private details however shall not be my focus as much as his intellectual development and an overview over his intellectual activities during the different periods of his life. Quote: 0:08 The role of the biography in the understanding of a phiosopher: 3:31 Kant's birth and environment: 8:12 Kant's family and parents: 15:39 The pietism of Kant's parents: 34:32 Kant's education: 54:30 Kant's years as a Hauslehrer: 1:00:12 Kant's academic career: 1:09:02 The critical turn in Kant's thinking in the 60s and 70s: 1:28:20 The development, spread and defense of the critical system in the 80s: 1:52:14 The conflict of faculties as the central topic of the first half of the 90s: 2:05:30 1. The conflict with the faculty of law: 2:08:14 2. The conflict with the faculty of theology: 2:11:40 The unfinished attempt to complete his life's work in the second half of the 90s: 2:23:39 Kant's age and death: 2:28:49 Thanks: 2:39:14 Kant himself scarcly said anything about his life in his writings. Contemporary sources are the descriptions of his life by his friends, students and acquaintances Borowski, Jachmann, Rink and Wasianski, out of which I mostly recommand: Reinhold Bernhard Jachmann: Immanuel Kant geschildert in Briefen an einen Freund: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_mbIUAAAAQAAJ (I don't know of an English translation.) Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

300 years ago today Immanuel Kant was born - and with this I'm announcing an extensive series of lectures which shall be dedicated to his whole philosophy. I spent the past year studying the 29 volumes of Kant's collected works and reading at least a 100 pages of Kant every day, in order to now provide the probably most comprehensive and most thorough presentation on his philosophy which has been attempted so far, to show its inner systematic relations and, most of all, to identify Kant's contribution to the aufklärung of humanity. Quote: 0:00 Announcement: 1:01 Why should one listen to these Kant lectures?: 2:14 1. Why should one give attention to my presentation of Kant specifically?: 2:48 - I am one of the greatest Kant experts: 4:00 - My aim is for throughness and depth: 13:33 - I want to present the various aspects of Kant's thinking in their systematic inner relations: 19:06 - These lectures are supposed to provide help for those who want to read Kant themselves: 29:04 - I have a lot of experience in presenting even difficult philosophical thoughts to laymen: 39:48 - I want to connect Kant's philosophy to life and identify what is aufkläring about it: 41:22 2. Why should one concern oneself with Kant?: - Kant is a thinker of transition: 42:04 - A systematic studying of philosophy should start with Kant: 48:00 Comment policy: 58:04 Request for support via Patreon, Ko-Fi or Paypal: 1:10:00 Invitation: 1:20:25 Thanks: 1:21:10

Perpetual peace between states is possible if these enter into a federation of nations and submit to binding international law. For this to be possible two conditions should be met inside the states: There should be freedom of thought so that criticism and proposals for reaching perpetual peace are possible, and the sate should have a republican consitution so that wars are only possible with the approval of the people that has to wage them.

Quote: 0:08

Peace through right: 2:54

There ought to be freedom of thought: 13:23

The state ought to be a republic: 17:00

Perpetual peace is possible, even if humans are evil: 45:24

Thanks: 59:23

The significance of the freedom of thought and of a republican constitution for peace Kant discusses in his essay On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Only one thing can guarantee perpetual peace: When the lawlessness between states is ended and internationally law which is binding for all is established and enforced by a federation of nations including all states. For such a federation possibly being established once, states should voluntarily follow a kind of international law and law of war even in the state of lawlessness: a law to conduct themselves in such a manner that an eventual joined entry into a federation of nations and a peaceful legal order remain possible. This means they should treat wars, when they are fighting them, as a necessary evil of the state of nature, but never engage in total war which aims at victory at any cost and at destroying the opponent, rather war should always be carried out in a way which leaves the possibility for eventual peace.

Quote: 0:08

How things are and how they ought to be in international law: 1:52

States should work towards peace through their conduct: 9:47

What is to be done immediately: 17:02

- When peace is made all further claims are to be given up and all future reasons for resuming the same war are to be resolved: 18:08

- No state shall meddle with the inner affairs of another state: 28:56

- Wars are to be fought only for just reasons: 43:35

- Wars are to be fought only by just means: 1:01:00

What is to be done eventually: 1:43:21

Why there must be justice even in a state of injustice and there shouldn't be any total wars: 2:01:26

The maxim of publicity: 2:32:57

Thanks: 2:47:53

The Palestine Laboratory:

https://youtu.be/1GvkFwpzDhI?si=buFGtwvlVU4IqT6j

https://youtu.be/5pPQydBGwQY?si=0Fw0nKsuh_u7F8mp

How we can leave the state of nature between states and can work towards a federation of nations, Kant explains in his On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Public right has only one single task: To give to each his own and thereby secure perpetual peace. This doesn't mean merely a ceasefire but a state in which a new outbreak of war is impossible and the right is secured. For this the lawlessness between states has to be ended and a federation of nations which enforces international law has to be created.

Quote: 0:08

War is the greatest evil on earth: 0:51

Peace is not ceasefire but justice: 18:16

International law should not be established through a state of nations: 36:30

International law should be established through a federation of nations: 44:54

A federation of nations that secures peace is possible: 1:04:25

Kant's examples and hope for the federation of nations: 1:14:58

The modern equality delusion: 1:29:25

The slow progress of justice: 2:07:05

Our political task for the enforcement of international law: 2:23:51

Thanks: 2:56:14

On perpetual peace one may read above all Kant's text On Perpetual Peace: , also his essay On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf, additional remarks can be found in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf, his lectures on moral philosophy and the philosophy of right: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up and in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy and the philosophy of right: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa19/ and on anthropology: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa15/ (I am not aware of any English translations).

The Iroquois Confederacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4gU2Tsv6hY

Noone in the public today is as inspired by the idea of international law and the ideal of a federation of nations as Francesca Albanese, whoever is enough of a cosmopolitan to care for the cause of peace therefore should listen to her, which is why I have created a playlist of speeches, interviews and conversations by and with Albanese: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ5EHjVpOe5EWVWz1xR2GRbAee_YGTIdP

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Even if within the states there is a monopoly of power and rule of law, between different states and peoples there is still lawlessness and the right of the strong. This is the state of nature on the level of the right of nations and the state of nature is always a war of all against all. The thin facade of civilization breaks apart as soon as people leave behind their own society with its customs and laws and enter this lawless jungle. In the way they deal with other nations even or most of all the civilized nations turn out to be ruthless barbarians. And this barbarism in the end turns inward. To end the barbarism, to establish justice and thereby not just a temporary ceasefire but perpetual peace, that is the task of the right of nations or international law.Quote: 0:08Peace is not ceasefire but rule of law: 1:54What is just can be determined by the maxim of publicity: 23:19The lawless anarchy between states: 32:27The civilized nations are outwardly barbarians: 45:28The outer barbarism turns people barbarian inwardly too: 1:55:53The perpetual peace is possible through international law: 2:03:19Thanks: 2:09:19On war and its consequences and the barbarism that goes along with it Kant writes in On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf as well as in various places of his handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ (I am not aware of any English translation).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

A person ought to be a citizen of the world: To not just care for the constrained interests of his self, his class, his nation, to not just judge out of the narrowness of his limited perspective. Rather a person should care for all human matters, take an interest in the whole world as a citizen of that world and always also consider what is best for the world out of a cosmopolitan attitude. The common best for humanity however is perpetual peace and therefore universal justice. The world citizen therefore welcomes the progress of republicanism and international law, even where he isn't directly affected. Indirectly he still is: for the universal best necessarily is also what's best for the individual. Especially the Germans though have a special disposition and vocation to not follow the national delusion but to be citizens for the world according to Kant.

Quote: 0:08

Cosmopolitanism: 1:49

Especially scholars and rulers should be world citizens: 23:50

The philosopher is always a world citizen: 41:46

The German national character: 55:25

Thanks: 1:17:59

Scattered remarks about the cosmopolitan attitude can be found specially in Kant's handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ (I am not aware of any English translation), this attitude however is alive in all of Kant's writings, especially those on the philosophy of right.

Together with this lecture I'm publishing a cosmopolitan playlist with videos of interest for every person with a cosmopolitan attitude. As with my other playlists I will add to it now and then, when I come across fitting videos. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ5EHjVpOe5GiX6N3DcxghQzOINnAjYAF

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Love for the fatherland should not be like the love for a beef steak from which everyone cuts off a slice for himself, Kant says. The true patriot takes his commonwealth not as loot but he serves the whole. This service however is not chimerical delusion only if it is a service of justice. The patriot fights for the rule of law and a durable constitution that preserves it.

Quote: 0:08

The Government ought to be patriotic: 1:40

Patriotism is not nationalism: 16:35

The patriot considers the state not his possession but himself a servant of the rule of law: 20:52

Fascism and ausklärung (entwilightment): 32:49

The unpatriotic mob: 46:24

National delusion vs. patriotic service of the rule of law: 1:11:39

Thanks: 1:29:28

The patriotic way of thinking is described in the second part of On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf. Further scattered remarks can be found in Kant's handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and his handwritten estate on the philosophy of right: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/443.html (I am not aware of any English translation).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Improvements of the state towards more freedom and justice Kant wants to accomplish through step by step reform, which in turn is brought about through public criticism and suggestion of improvements. Where not even this is possible and censorship is in place, the only remaining option is to hope for better times and to act as a good and law-abiding citizen who at most engages in passive resistence when he is expected to do things that are in violation of the moral law. Active resistence and revolutions however are necessarily an injustice for they destroy the right itself before establishing a new one. If they nevertheless happen however, they should be taken as a cry of nature for freedom and we should make the best out of them. In this way Kant's relationship to revolutions was very nuanced. According to principles he rejected them and would never have become a revolutionary, wherever they took place however he welcomed them enthusiastically.

Quote: 0:08

What should a person do in a despotic state?: 0:48

Quietly wait for better times: 10:40

People are in favour of revolutions not because they are legitimate but because they are eudaimonists who don't care about right: 13:50

Revolutions are always unjust: 24:05

Revolutions destroy the civil state and throw people back into the state of nature: 59:16

Revolutions hardly ever lead to the state becoming a republic: 1:18:54

Why revolutions should not be opposed, despite being unjust: 1:35:06

Defiance is legitimate, resistence is not: 1:46:40

Kant's critique of revolutions is to be read as subtile endorsement of the French Revolution: 2:04:59

Kant's own relationship with revolutions: 2:13:20

When revolutions and resistence aren't unjust, without however being just: 2:24:04

Thanks: 3:02:38

The topic of revolution Kant discusses again and again in his works on the philosophy of right. For example in On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm and On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf as well as in the preliminary works to the both texts: https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/153.html & https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/125.html (I am not aware of any English translations) and also in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf and his handwritten estate on the philosophy of right: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/443.html (I am not aware of any English translations). It is recommended to also check out the respective passages in his lectures on moral philosophy on the question of how a person ought to behave under despotism: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any English translations).

Hannah Arendt too remarked on the relationship between revolution and despotism insofar as both are based on the same eudaimonism: https://youtu.be/l1fyT8nAJOY?si=HfgeWHwoWX-y8pMt.

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

No state has been fully republican in the sense of Kant so far. This begs the question how a despotic state may be made more republican. Kant did not support the path of revolution, which always is an injustice, but that of step by step reform. For this it is necessary that the philosophers in the world sense - i. e. the sages serving as lawgivers of reason and reflecting on the final purposes of humanity, while abstracting from everything particular and all self-interest - be heard by the rulers. And for this in turn it is only necessary that they have the right to speak their thoughts freely in public.

Quote: 0:08

How a despotic state is to be made more republican: 1:11

The philosophers ought not to rule but to advise the ruler: 12:27

- Kant's own nature did not strive for ruling: 23:32- Power corrupts the jugdment: 30:08

There must be freedon of speech for the philosophers: 1:02:51

Freedom of speech is not a purpose in itself: 1:33:52Darkening: 1:51:30

Thanks: 2:19:48

On the role of the philosopher in the state and the political meaning of so-called freedom of speech Kant writes in his text Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm. In addition you can also read the relevant reflections in his handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ (I am not aware of any English translation).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant distinguishes two forms of government: The despotic and the republican one. The form of government here is different from the form of state: Autocracy, aristocracy or democracy all can govern in a despotic or a republican manner. What matters for Kant is not who is the sovereign in the state, what matters is that the sovereign represents the citizens and gives laws which protect freedom and represent the common will, as well as that the sovereign isn't the regent at the same time, i. e. that the lawgiver and the executive power are separate from one another. The republic is a rule of law state which subjects people only to reason, despotism is an unjust state where they are dependent on the arbitrary whims of the ruler.

Quote: 0:08

Republic and despotism: 0:16

The architectonic deduction of the forms of government: 23:19

1) In the republic all human beings are free: 42:47

- A state that wants to make people happy is despotic: 55:33

2) In the republic all subjects are equal before the law: 1:13:23

- The republican equality is equality of force through the law: 1:24:45

- The lawgiver is above the law and therefore must be irreprehensible: 1:36:24

3) In the republic all independent citizens are fraternally united as lawgivers: 1:40:10

- Right of suffrage: 2:20:10

What makes a republic: 3:02:05

Liberty, equality, fraternity: 3:04:33

The republic according to the four titles of the table of categories: 3:17:11

The form of government matters, not the form of rulership: 3:34:57

The endurance of the republic ought to be guaranteed by the constitution: 3:43:49

Thanks: 3:58:23

Republicanism and its three principles Kant describes in his essays Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm and On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf as well as in the preliminary works to the both texts: https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/153.html & https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/125.html and also in his handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and on the philosophy of right: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/443.html (I am not aware of any English translations).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

All moral action is working towards the realization of the highest good: A world in which people have happiness while also deserving it. But it is Kant's accomplishment to have shown two things: The highest good doesn't mark the beginning but the end of morality, we ought not to realize it because it is good, it is good because we ought to realize it. And the two halves of the highest good cannot be united in the sensual world - whereby it is pointing beyond, towards a supersensual world and forming a bridge from moral philosophy to the philosophy of religion.

Quote: 0:08

The highest good in Kant's philosophy: 1:15

The highest good doesn't mark the beginning but the end of morality: 3:34

The highest physical good: 18:15

The highest moral good: 36:36

The highest (ethical) good: 1:02:32

The dialectic of practical reason: 1:18:55

Ancient attempts at solving the dialectic: 1:23:50

The highest physical and moral good are separated: 1:39:11

The highest juridical good: 1:51:31

Most of the time morality and prudence align: 2:03:58

Most people are bad and prefer their adventage over morality: 2:09:27

The common objections against Kant: 2:19:38

Morality is to be prefered over one's own adventage: 2:33:08

The solution of the dialectic of practical reason in religion: 3:02:17

Thanks: 3:09:49

The highest good Kant discusses in his Critique of Pure Reason: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm and most of all in his Critique of Practical Reason: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5683/5683-h/5683-h.htm

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant supports the separation of the legislative, exective and judicative powers, already suggested before him by Montesquieu. However the legislative power to him is souvereign: Every subject of the state and also the two other powers are under the law which determines what is just and what is unjust. The lawgiver himself however cannot possibly be under the law, since it is only given by him. For that reason he must be irreprehensible and even like God's representative on earth and mustn't be able to commit an injustice, since he could not be held accountable for it. Kant wants to achieve this exactly through the separation of powers: The souvereign is to rule but not to govern the state.

Quote: 0:08

Separation of powers in Kant's thinking and its deduction from reason: 0:37

The monopoly of power of the state: 14:35

The lawgiver is the souvereign: 31:33

The souvereignty of the legislative and the danger of despotism as a problem of the philosophy of right: 51:18

Solution: The souvereign is to be religious: 54:56

Solution: Strict separation of powers between legislative and executive: 1:03:03

Thanks: 2:03:47

On the separation of powers and the role of the overlord in the state Kant talks in the second section of On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf as well as in the preliminary works to the same text: https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/125.html. To better understand this topic one should definitely also read his handwritten estate on the philosophy of right: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/443.html and his lectures on the philosophy of right: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any English translations).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Important for Kant's thinking, though often overlooked, is his distinction between ruling and governing: of blind, arbitrary commanding of what is to happen and thoughtful guiding and conducting of how something happens. The governing to him is more important than the ruling. As the composer rules the orchestra and his notes are like a law to it, so on the other hand it is governed by the conductor and he can very much improve or diminish a piece through his conducting.

Quote; 0:08

Ruling and governing: 0:39

Governing is more important and difficult than ruling: 32:13

The wide applicability of the distinction between ruling and governing: 47:00

Ruling and governing in the state: 1:02:46

Kant's concepts as an enrichment of today's often primitive political thought: 1:15:33

Thanks: 1:33:30

The difference of ruling and governing Kant doesn't explicate in any text or chapter in detail, rather he mentions it again and again at various places in his texts on the philosophy of right or anthropology. One may read on it especially On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm, the second section of the Conflict of Faculties: https://de.scribd.com/document/292309779/Kant-Immanuel-Conflict-of-the-Faculties-Abaris-1979, the Anthropology from a Prgmatic Point of View: https://dokumen.pub/anthropology-from-a-pragmatic-point-of-view-0521671655-9780521671651.html as well as the lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 (I am not aware of any English translation).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

The criminal right is an important part of the doctrine of right. It's all the more unfortunate that in Kant's work it's utterly insufficient: He supports a punishment of avangement which is to reinstitute the justice broken by the crime. In this he loses sight of the proper task of right: To secure the freedom of men.

Quote: 0:08

Kant's criminal right is useless: 0:46

Punishment should not be arbitrary but necessary: 12:54

Punishment may also but never exclusively be pragmatic punishment: 16:33

Critique of Kant's criminal right: 34:25

- Kant doesn't apply his own principle consistently: 44:01

- Kant wants to retain the dignity of the punished and the punisher but fails to do so: 50:09

- Kant mixes up ethics and right: 1:07:54

Thanks: 1:33:33

Criminal right Kant discusses mainly in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf.

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

The object of right is the mine and yours, both the innate as well as the acquired property. In the state of nature however all acquired property is only provisional and there is no guarantee that others will respect the mine as mine. For that very reason the state is needed: Its task is to give to each his own, i. e. to guarantee everyone their property. This however requires that the state itself with its laws and constitution must persist and be souvereign. And for that reason that which is necessary for sustaining the whole must also be the property of the whole and must never be owned by an individual.

Quote: 0:08

The task of the state is the protection of property: 1:08

The antietatism of the unaufkläred: 9:16

The substance of the state mustn't be the property of individual citizens: 27:07

The implications of Kant's doctrine of state for the ecological crisis of the present: 52:56

Thanks: 1:10:00

On the role of the state one may read Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf, the preliminary works to the Metaphysics of Morals: https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/207.html and the handwritten estate on the philosophy of right: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/443.html (I am not aware of any English translations).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

All action, according to Kant, follows either the principal of morality or that of happiness. This holds true also for political action and therefore politics either serves the realisation of right, as reason demands, or it serves the common wellfare. This exactly is what the conflict between the philosophical faculty and the faculty of law is about according to Kant. As far as he is concerned politics is allowed to be prudent and therefore think of what's beneficial, but only within the framework and not at the cost of right.

Quote: 0:08

The metaphysical state's right: 0:19

Politics as exercisindoctrine of right: 19:21

State's right and state's prudence: 26:46

The conflict of faculties: 44:11

The current ideology demands pragmatism and rejects any kind of idealism: 1:01:32

What is presented to us as prudent in politics, often isn't at all: 1:15:20

The selfish politics of the liberals is to blame for the rise of the right: 1:19:42

Prudent politics has its place within the framework and in the service of the righteous one: 1:30:11

Thanks: 1:42:12

On the role of politics and its relation to right and prudence Kant talks again and again in various places of his moral and anthropological writings, especially in his essays On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf and Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm and in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ (I am not aware of any English translation).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

The object of right is the mine and yours, that is, in the case of innate rights, that which is mine by birth, or, in the case of acquired rights, that which became mine at some point. In the state of nature, when there is no state and no law, the principle of right is: neminem leadere, don't harm anyone, i. e. let everyone keep his own, and this is the principle of commutative justice. But here there is no agreement about what is mine, what is yours, wherefore the state of nature is a constant state of war. Perpetual peace can only come about through public right: A contract which bestows to each person his own as his own and guarantees it. This is a distributive justice which acts according to the principle: suum cuique tribue, give to each his own. Just therefore can only be whatever could be contained in such a social contract to which everyone could agree. And this can be determined through an experiment of reason, that is through the question whether it can stand publicity.

Quote: 0:08

Justice and therefore peace are only possible through public right: 0:37

The state needs law, force and freedom: 9:18

The conditions where at least one essential element of the state is missing: 16:09

The analogy with ethics: 35:06

Wild freedom and freedom under the law: 54:38

Barbarism: 1:04:04

Just laws are those to which everyone could have agreed in an original social contract: 1:30:26

The maxim of publicity in right: 2:03:39

The maxim of publicity in ethics: 2:20:57

Thanks: 2:47:58

The relation of freedom, law and force Kant discusses in his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View: https://dokumen.pub/anthropology-from-a-pragmatic-point-of-view-0521671655-9780521671651.html, his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 and his handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ (I am not aware of any English translation).

The Maxim of Publicity is discussed in his texts: On the Common Saying: That may be Correct in Theory but is of no Use in Practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf, Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm as well as in his handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ (I am not aware of any English translations).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

In the state of nature, that is without common laws, men live in constant at least potential war with one another. In this state the mere presence of another person already constitutes a threat, more than that of a wild animal could ever be. For that reason it is a duty to go from the state of nature into a civil state, that is to errect a common law through a contract which gives to each his own and guarantees it. Through this public right creates a perpetual peace between people.

Quote: 0:08

The state of nature: 0:34

The state of nature is a state of war, for which reason we must enter the civil state: 13:06

Public right is supposed to bring justice and thereby perpetual peace: 26:53

The social contract requires truthfulness: 37:27

The three principles of Ulpian: 50:38

Honeste vive (live honestly): 56:53

Neminem leadere (harm no one) & suum cuique tribue (give to each his own): 1:06:15

Kant's method of reading: 1:25:13

The just war is a war in order to force under the right: 1:29:31

Leaving the social contract is an injustice: 2:06:44

Thanks: 2:47:18

Ulpian's principles of right Kant discusses in various places of his lectures on moral philosophy: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma/page/n5/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma/page/n5/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/page/n5/mode/2up as well as of his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ (I am not aware of an English translation of either). On public right and the transition into it Metaphysics of Morals talk: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. Looking into the preliminary works to the Metaphysics of Morals is also helpful: https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/207.html (I am not aware of any English translation).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

One of the most important problems the philosophy of right has to solve is that of original acquisition: How can an item not belonging to anybody become the rightful property of a certain person from whose use he may exclude everyone else? Kant answers this through his theory of the ground which is at the basis of his whole philosophy of right: Everyone has an original right to a piece of the earth. This theory is insufficient but still has merit.

Quote: 0:08

The problem of original acquisition: 0:44

Every person has an innate outer right to the ground: 16:46

All human beings share an original common ownership of the whole ground: 26:47

All other property is to be derived from the ownership of that piece of ground on which it is originally apprehended: 40:59

Everyone can rightfully own as much of the ground as he could defend in the state of nature: 48:58

The ownership of the ground and the original acquisition require a state of rights: 1:01:31

Kant as an anti-Malthus: 1:20:23

Kant's theory makes huge inequalities in wealth impossible: 1:44:15

Why Kant's solution to the problem of original acquisition is insufficient: 1:50:51

The theory of original acquisition leads from private right to public right: 2:09:15

Thanks: 2:10:17

Original acquisition and the theory of the ground Kant deals with in the doctrine of rights in the Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. To fully understand them however it's helpful to also read the preliminary works to the Metaphysics of Morals: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa23/207.html (I am not aware of any English translation).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Right is about the mine and yours, its principle is neminem leade, i. e. don't harm anyone, harmed however I get by anyone who doesn't respect what's mine. Now there are innate and acquired rights, depending on whether something is mine by birth like my body or becomes mine like some outer property. That what's mine from birth must be respected, lies analytically in the principle of right, whoever touches it necessarily harms me. He who touches something outside of me however does not necessarily harm me but rather only if it is thought of as connected with my choice, that is as being my intellectual property. Connections however we can think of in twelve manners according to Kant, which he describes in his table of categories. He therefore deduces from it a table of categories which claims to describe all possible manners of rightful ownership.

Quote: 0:08

The categories of right: 0:31

The table of categories of rightful property explained: 36:50

I) Mathematical categories: 37:35

1) Quantity: 37:522) Quality: 44:40

II) Dynamical categories: 48:45

3) Relation: 49:33- Item right: 50:30

- Personal right: 1:07:15

- Personal right in the manner of an item: 1:18:11

4) Modality: 1:47:08

The relationship between the categories of right: 1:50:01

The schematism of acquisition: 2:00:31

Kant's juridical idealism: 2:21:57

Thanks: 2:25:54

Categories of rightful property according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/categories-of-rightful-property-according-to-Kant.jpg

The three fields of private right - item right, personal right and personal right in the manner of an item - Kant deals with in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. Whoever wants to fully grasp the categories of right and the schematism of acquisition as such however should definitely study the preliminary work to the Metaphysics of Morals: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa23/ (I am not aware of any English translation).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Private right according to Kant demands restriction of everyone's choice as much as is necessary for the choice of everyone else to coexist with it. All right therefore is concerned with the preservation of freedom. And for that reason it is about what Kant calls the mine and yours: about property. Here Kant distinguishes innate and acquired rights, that is rights to that which is mine by birth and to that which is mine through acquisition. The innate human right is the right to one's own freedom. The proper task of the philosophy of right however is solving the question how a right can be acquired, that is how property is possible.

Quote: 0:08

Private right: 0:30

Innate righhts: 14:44

Acquired rights: 22:52

Temporary acquistion through physical possession: 29:05

Why there must be property: 36:59

The unjustified critique of Kant's formalism: 51:38

The parallelism between the philosophy of right and theoretical philosophy: 1:09:38

The dialectic of right and its solution through juridical idealism: 1:14:22

Property obliges: 1:46:21

Conclusion: 2:04:11

Thanks: 2:07:09

Private right and juridical idealism Kant discusses in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. To add to this and to better understand this one should also read his preparatory work to the Metaphysics of Morals: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa23/207.html (I am not aware of any English translation).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Most people seek a passive happiness: Resting, indulging, receiving pleasure. Kant however is aware that there is also an active happiness: Being active, creating, bringing forth meaning.

Quote: 0:08

Kant teaches mostly a negative path to happiness: 0:20

Possible sources of happiness: 8:48

Passive & active happiness: 13:45

Why activity is pleasurable: 35:28

The active person doesn't only work but also rests or plays: 54:10

The unity of all sages and philosophers on happiness and how today it is not discussed: 58:33

Thanks: 1:19:42

On activity and the happiness growing out of it Kant never talked comprehensively or systematically but rather made remarks in various places. It is recommended to study especially his lectures on his topic, both his lectures on metaphysics: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant_d7g2/mode/2up as well as his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 as well as his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any English translations.)

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Moral philosophy is made up of two sciences according to Kant: Ethics and Right (or Law or Justice). Metaphysics of morals in general is the doctrine of duties, ethics and right therefore both deal with the duties of men. Right however is concerned only with those duties which come with a right for others to compell someone to fulfill them. However compulsion can only concern outer actions, not attitudes. While ethics demands the good will as the source of good deeds, right therefore cares only for the actions as such and doesn't ask whether a person is inwardly good or evil.

Quote: 0:08

The place of right in the architectonic of Kant's system: 1:01

"Recht" could be translated as "right", "law" or "justice": 11:14

The difference between right and ethics: 25:15

Right is only concerned with narrow duties towards others: 37:48

Ethics is concerned with the will, right only with choice: 57:33

The different kinds of right/laws: 1:20:42

Kant's insufficient separation of right and ethics and the problems arising from it: 1:45:20

Thanks: 2:08:50

Overiew over philosophy according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Philosophy-according-to-Kant.jpg

Overiew over metaphysics according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Metaphysics-according-to-Kant-scaled.jpg

The difference between Ethics and Right Kant explains in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

All of morality hinges on conscientiousness. Whoever has no conscience can even seemingly accept the moral law, but break it at any time without admitting it to himself. Conscientiousness however for Kant is nothing else but true religiosity: Acting is if one had to answer in front of an all-seeing, holy God. And therefore only he acts conscientiously who is so certain of not doing an injustice that he would be willing to bet his eternal felicity on it.

Quote: 0:08

There is a duty to constantly examine one's morality: 1:33

What conscience is: 9:42

Rational man judges the sensual man who is capable of reason: 13:53

Conscientiousness: 26:12

Moral probabilism is without conscience: 34:57

The experiment of the bet: 47:49

Most people are completely without conscience: 55:04

The consciencious person must reject consequentialism: 1:49:06

Conscientiousness is religion: 1:53:11

Conscientiousness requires truthfulness: 2:01:10

The experiment of the bet can also serve to find out the degree of our theoretical conviction: 2:04:22

The philosopher must be conscientious and ruled by love for truth: 2:37:25

Thanks: 2:41:39

A short explanation of conscience can be found in the Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf On top of that I recommend reading Kant's remarks in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ as well as his lectures on moral philosophhy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translations online.)

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant is famous for completely rejecting lying. Often he is criticized for not even allowing emergency lies to save a human life. But the criticism tells more about the critics - about their superficial understanding of Kant and about their own lack of morality - than about him. A morality which doesn't have the ommandment of truthfulness as its fundament is no morality.

Quote: 0:08

There is a commandment to be truthful in Kant's philosophy: 1:10

Kant demands neither openess nor truth nor is he pedantic: 10:05

The prohibition of lying is a prohibition of consequentialism: 28:57

What kind of duty the duty of truthfulness is: 44:34

- It is a duty of right: 45:52

- It is a duty towards oneself: 1:07:51

The prohibition of lying is rejected because people don't care about morality at all and they don't ask whether an action is good or evil but only what its use is: 1:25:14

Without lies people could hardly be evil: 1:50:18

The lie is the radical evil in the human being: 2:10:13

Sincerity is the only humanly possible moral perfection: 2:30:50

The truthfulness is also a condition of conscientiousness and the social contract: 2:34:21

Thanks: 2:39:50

Why one shouldn't lie under any circumstances, Kant discusses in his essay On a Supposed Right to Lie from Love of Humanity: https://korpora.org/kant/aa08/423.html. For a deeper understanding it is recommended however to also study the scattered remarks in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ as well as in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up zu studieren (I could not find any free English translations online).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

In morality other people should not be taken as a model, rather one should orient oneself directly on the moral law itself. Still the good example is important. From a good person we might not learn how we should act, but we learn that it is possible to act the way we ought to.

Quote: 0:08

The yardstick of morality should be the law itself, not other people: 1:30

The good person serves as an example of the possibility of fulfilling the moral law: 17:15

The role of Jesus in Kant's thought: 27:46

One should avoid association with bad people: 44:36

One should be an example of morality to others: 55:25

One should put the veil of the love for humanity over the failings and shortcomings of people: 1:01:38

One shouldn't try to find bad things even in the good person: 1:24:32

Arrogance and hopelessness as the two cliffs of morality and rigorism and religion as their remedies: 1:35:30

The emotional plague: 1:40:52

Thanks: 1:59:53

On the role of yardstick and example in morality Kant talks again and again in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I could not find any free English translations online.)

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant distinguishes four kinds of moral duties: The duties to have reverence for the rights of other humans and for humanity in oneself, and the duties to further the purposes of other humans and those of humanity in oneself. To him morality is not about preventing suffering and creating happiness, as it is for others, but about freedom: The moral duty is about preserving and increasing freedom.

Quote: 0:08

The four kinds of duties and the golden role: 1:17

The duties of right towards oneself: 19:04

The duties of virtue towards oneself: 51:41

The duties of right towards others: 1:27:41

The duties of virtue towards others: 1:32:46

Conclusion: 1:52:24

The moral relation between God and men: 1:54:16

Thanks: 2:01:31

Specific duties Kant writes about mainly in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. I very much recommend also reading his often more extensive and more enlightening lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translations online).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

All moral duties, be they duties towards other people or towards onself, can be divided into duties in the narrow and in the wider sense according to Kant. The former are duties of reverence for rights, the others are duties of active love for one's neighbour and are about the promotion of purposes.

Quote: 0:08

Narrow and wide duties: 0:53

In case of conflict the narrow duties always have to be fulfilled first: 13:15

The distinction of narrow and wide duties according to the categorical imperative: 28:30

Duties of right and duties of love: 48:58

Reverence, love and humanity: 54:47

The love of one's neighbour that we are morally obliged to can only be love of benevolence, not love of complacence: 1:07:23

Obligation and generosity: 1:37:06

Generosity should be taken, if possible, as if one was only doing one's obligation: 2:13:33

Thanks: 2:33:11

Specific duties Kant writes about mainly in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. I very much recommend also reading his often more extensive and more enlightening lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translations online).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

The moral law doesn't just oblige us in regards to our fellow human beings but also in regards to ourselves, specifically in regards to the humanity in us, of which we ought to act worthy. And these duties make up the most important part of morality for Kant. He who doesn't revere and honour himself cannot revere and honour humanity in others either.

Quote: 0:08

The duties towards oneself: 0:11

The duties towards oneself according to the table of categories: 24:40

Duties towards oneself are a very untimely thought nowadays: 50:49

Why our age doesn't accept duties towards oneself: 56:06

Duties towards oneself are duties towards one's humanity: 1:17:22

Duties towards oneself are duties of reverence for one's own human dignity: 1:28:51

Duties towards oneself are duties of preserving and increasing one's own freedom: 1:42:31

Lots of things that many don't regard as moral questions or only as questions of duties towards others, actually belongs to the duties towards oneself: 1:54:45

Most have some, but not enough sense for their own dignity: 2:09:40

Reverence for oneself and reverence for others are necessarily connected: 2:32:16

A life of dignity is also a life of felicity: 2:49:11

Thanks: 3:14:08

Specific duties Kant writes about mainly in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. I very much recommend also reading his often more extensive and more enlightening lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translations online).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

One part of the moral duties is made up of duties we have towards other human beings - towards humans, not animals or spirits or other beings - according to Kant; they aren't duties to avoid making others suffer or to bring them happiness, but rather they are duties of revering and increasing people's freedom.

Quote: 0:08

The deduction of the specific duties from the moral law in Kant's thinking: 1:25

The division of the moral duties: 19:05

We have moral duties only towards humans: 20:02

Which duties we have towards others: 35:30

Duties towards others are not about their happiness but their freedom: 39:48

We have a duty to sustain ourselves through our own, useful work, instead of being parasites: 54:04

We have a duty to restrict the use of the world's goods, so that others can also make use of them: 1:10:25

Thanks: 1:56:07

Specific duties Kant writes about mainly in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. I very much recommend also reading his often more extensive and more enlightening lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translations online).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Every rational being carries within itself the ideal of the God well-pleasing humanity, the representation of a perfectly holy human being. This ideal we ought to strive for, against it do we ought to meassure ourselves. In infinity no one may ever reach this ideal, but this, according to Kant, mustn't be an argument for discarding the ideal itself and for not striving to conform to it.

Quote: 0:08

Moral rigorism: 0:25

The ideal of the God well-pleasing humanity: 2:34

The four ideals of ancient pratical philosophy: 12:13

The ideal of holiness humbles us: 29:48

The ideal of holines serves as a model of creation and of judgment: 48:07

The intelligible character of the human being is black or white, the empirical character can be grey: 1:14:31

The good will shows itself not as a good but as a constantly improving empirical character: 1:29:45

Our mode of thinking ought to and can conform with the ideal of holines, even if the mode of sense does not: 1:49:23

Thanks: 1:54:48

Kant speaks of the various ideals of practical philosophy in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: http://korpora.org/kant/aa19/. He also deals with them in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up. (I am not aware of any English translations.)

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant is often attacked for his moral rigorism. His morality, you often hear, is too strict, it leaves too little freedom, no human being can be good enough for this moralty and it isn't fit for practice. Those accusations ar eoften dishonest however, the critics of Kant may pretend to not be able to follow his morality, the truth however is that they simply don't want to follow it. His morality seems to strict to them because it doesn't let them stay immoral.

Quote: 0:08

In morality there are only the positions of latitudinarism and rigorism: 0:50

Kant's moral rigorism is often criticized: 8:57

One should overcome the instinctive and timely aversion to rigorism and consider the arguments in support of it: 21:52

One should reflect critically what issue one really takes with rigorism: 31:15

The critics of Kant's morality simply don't want to be moral but only do whatever benefits them: 43:11

The aufkläred thinking of the philosopher abstracts vom the sensual and contingent and grasps the law behind it: 1:21:02

Every person has to either live according to the maxim that the right must be sacrificed for the world or that the world must be sacrificed for the right: 1:26:12

Rigorism makes righteousness humble and prevents self-rightesousness: 1:32:30

One ought not to declare the good to be impossible on the grounds of an experience which only exists because one has done evil: 1:44:42

Experience should not distort the metaphysics of morals, but it is important for moral anthropology: 2:18:22

Ideas ought to be practical and whoever drains them of their power through sophistry is responsible for the evil in the world: 2:22:53

Thanks: 2:31:45

On rigorism and latitudinarism Kant talks several times in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any English translations). He also deals with the criticism of rigorism in On the common saying: That may be correct in theory, but it is of no use in practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

In theoretical regard Kant dismisses the idealism that declares the world to be a mere illusion. Practically, however, we should act as if it was true: We should consider the brevity and vanity of life, treat the world as a children's game and not take anything as important except our moral duty. This is the path to a constantly cheerful heart.

Quote: 0:08

Nothing in life has value except our morality: 0:22

Life is short and fleeting: 27:54

Mere life, measured by its pleasure, is worthless: 34:43

Practical idealism: 54:18

The power of imagination as condition of the possibility of practical idealism: 1:21:41

The constantly cheerful heart: 1:51:44

Abstraction as means to a happy life: 2:01:00

Thanks: 2:22:23

The posture of practical idealism and the constantly cheerful heart Kant discusses mainly in his works on anthropology, so in his Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view: http://korpora.org/kant/aa07/230.html, his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 and his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/234.html. (I could not find any free English translations online) But also his lectures on logic deal with art at times, that is with the difference between the aesthetical and the logical: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes241imma/page/n5/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes242imma/page/n7/mode/2up (English translations exist, but unfortunately I couldn't find them for free on the internet.) You may also gain an impression of Kant's attitude towards life with its brevity and towards death through his Thoughts on the Occasion of Mr. Johann Friedrich von Funk’s Untimely Death https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/84129/excerpt/9780521884129_excerpt.pdf

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Evil for Kant is more than just a lack of goodness. It cannot be explained by the sensual drives in a person simply being stronger than reason, he who’d rather follow them than the moral law must already have decided to allow them more influence on his actions than the thought of duty. The propensity for this, which every person, even the virtuous and wise one, bears, Kant calls the radical evil in human nature.

Quote: 0:08

Evil: 1:14

Humans aren’t evil out of an evil will: 9:10

Humans aren’t evil because of being overpowered by their sensuality: 24:57

The radical evil in the human being: 41:40

Everyone has a propensity, even though not necessarily an appetite or inclination, for evil: 1:10:09

Man is neither good nor evil by nature, but not a moral being at all, but he has a propensity for evil and a predisposition for good: 1:33:00

The three types of radical evil: 1:44:27

Deceit as the root of evil: 1:54:19

Because of the propensity for evil man can only be good through virtue: 2:27:53

Thanks: 2:49:56

On radical evil Kant talks mainly in the first main part of his Religion within the Bounds of Reason Alone: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/religion/religion-within-reason.htm. For fully understanding it however it’s strongly advised to also read his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and especially on the philosophy of religion: http://korpora.org/kant/aa19/615.html (I am not aware of any free English translations online).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Is morality based on rational insight as rationalism teaches or on a moral feeling as moral empiricists claim? Kant is a rationalist: According to him it is reason which gives itself a law and through which we recognize what our moral obligation is and what is morally forbidden. But in spite of that the moral feeling, that is the feeling of reverence, plays a central role in his moral philosophy: Because only through reverence which we feel for the law and our own free, autonomous nature as rational beings are we driven to actually do what we recognized as being moral.

Quote: 0:08

It's not enough for choice to pick actions that are in accordance with the law, it also must pick them for the right reason: 0:41

Choice makes its choice based on feelings that function as driving springs: 8:48

The moral sense theory: 23:21

The moral feeling is not the yardstick but the driving spring of morality: 27:55

There is a moral feeling, but no moral sense: 1:02:31

The sentiment as a kind of moral sense: 1:08:47

Kant's sympathetic synthesis of moral rationalism and empiricism: 1:21:55

Pathological and practical feeling: 1:26:37

Evil people don't know the practical feeling and think it's a pathological one: 1:48:44

The moral feeling is sensual in its quality but supersensual in its origin: 1:54:36

How the feeling of reverence comes about: 2:04:29

Example: 2:30:56

The role of the feeling of reverence in morality: 2:40:44

Kant's inconsistency: 2:47:53

Reverence for people is actually reverence for the moral law: 2:52:49

Thanks: 2:54:49

Most extensively Kant writes on the feeling of reverence and especially its origin in the main piece on the driving springs of practical reason in the Critique of Practical Reason: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Critique_of_Practical_Reason.

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant shows that morality is about the good will. To be sure, will is more than intention and from a truly good will there will always come forth certain actions, but morality is not about calculating the assumed best consequences and depending one's actions on the expected results. This consequentialism rather is a main obstacle of morality.

Quote: 0:08

Kant's moral philosophy rejects all consequentialism: 0:21

Consequentialism thought to its logical conclusion is absurd and totalitarian: 7:51

In politics injustice is always justified in a consequentialist manner by claiming that justice would bring catastrophe: 20:20

There are no small or petty offenses in morality: 34:02

Many evil actions are justified in a consequentialist manner by claiming that nothing would get better if they weren't done: 40:13

Many give up because of consequentialism and become pessimistic because there are no good results: 1:01:28

We can't possibly predict the consequences of our actions with certainty: 1:17:20

If good actions in the present will bring bad consequences in the future, that usually is only because in the past people already acted in a consequentialist manner: 1:38:33

There are no good consequences in the sensual world anyways, true morality therefore requires transcendental idealism: 1:52:20

Thanks: 2:02:40

Kant's whole moral philosophy is directed against consequentialism, without a specific text being dedicated to this one topic in particular. For an easy introduction one can read Kant's short essay On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy (I could not find a free translation online).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Actions as such cannot be good, they can have legality, i. e. be in accordance with the moral law, but actual morality lies in the attitude from which it stemss: in the good will.

Quote: 0:08

Legality of action and morality of will: 0:21

Spirit and letter: 29:34

Aufklärung liberates from being let by sensuality: 36:54

Good will is more than good intention: 49:12

Morally a person can be considered as if he actually had done and accomplished whatever he truly wants: 58:36

Character, not the mode of sense, makes a person good: 1:13:47

One ought not to prematurely consider oneself to be better than others or past people: 1:20:32

The degree of someone's Aufklärung shows in areas where what's right and good isn't generally accepted yet: 1:25:28

Often it is only coincidence who is on which side: 1:49:18

Many would be capable even of great evil under the right circumstances: 1:59:04

Original sin: 2:11:49

Most good in the world is more due to conincidence than to good will, but that doesn't mean that coincidence excuses evil: 2:29:55

We can judge the legality of actions, but not the morality of will: 2:40:37

Even one's own good will is uncertain: 2:55:37

Thanks: 3:10:31

The significance of good will and the difference between legality and morality can be studied especially in the Groundwork to the Metaphysics of Morals: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysics_of_Morals as well as the Critique of Practical Reason: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Critique_of_Practical_Reason.

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

It’s not a person’s mode of sense – his personality insofar as he was born with it, his nature and his heart – which has value but rather his mode of thinking – his personality insofar as he himself created it, his character. It is the consistent following of maxims: He who has character is reliable and in unity with himself. And only such a person is a true human being, deserving of the name of a rational being, instead of being a slave to his whims.

Quote: 0:00

Mode of sense and mode of thinking: 2:41

Character: 18:32

Only a person of character is free: 37:56

Character bestows dignity and should be valued: 47:00

A person of character isn’t pedantic because of it: 1:12:58

Fake character: 1:22:02

Evil character: 1:36:51

The moral person acts out of duty which is not the same as blind obedience: 1:55:16

The best have character and do their duty, the judgments of others don’t have to be heard: 2:09:07

For moralisation you first should create a character as such: 2:19:54

How to form a character: 2:34:23

Kant’s midlife crisis and formation of his character: 2:46:23

Thanks: 3:03:13

About the mode of sense, about human's mind and heart Kant talks at various places in his handwritten estate on morality: http://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ as well as his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up. Many further remarks can be found in his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 (I am not aware of English translations to any of thse) as well as his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View: https://dokumen.pub/anthropology-from-a-pragmatic-point-of-view-0521671655-9780521671651.html.

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

According to Kant we mean three different things when calling someone a good person, depending on the context and situation: We can call someone that because he has a good nature, a good heart or a good character. Only the last of those is truly morally good. Nature and heart together form the mode of sense of a person and this can make one more easy or hard to be around for others, but is neither morally good nor evil.

Quote: 0:08

Whether a person is good, can not be determined solely outwardly by his actions: 2:10

Good-naturedness: 6:49

Good-heartedness: 20:33

Kant's rejection of the soft-minded morality of compassion: 35:46

Compassion can easily lead to mere inactive lamenting: 47:02

Compassion can easily make one self-righteous: 52:00

Compassion can easily be outweighted by other feelings: 1:05:33

Compassion is fickle: 1:12:03

Compassion makes one easy to manipulate: 1:33:23

The mode of the sense and the mode of thinking: 1:45:40

Example of the worthlessness of leftist humanism and of the limits of empathy: 1:58:20

Thanks: 2:18:10

About the mode of sense, about human's mind and heart Kant talks at various places in his handwritten estate on morality: http://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ as well as his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up. Many further remarks can be found in his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0.

Omer Bartov: As a former IDF soldier and historian of genocide, I was deeply disturbed by my recent visit to Israel: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/israel-gaza-historian-omer-bartov

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

The human being is a citizen of two worlds according to Kant: Not only a part of nature but also a member in a supersensual kingdom of purposes together with all other rational beings. And while in nature he is subjected to a law from outside of him, morality commands to regard oneself in the kingdom of purposes as if one were to give to it a law through one's own will.

Quote: 0:08

The categorical imperative: 0:44

Kingdom: 6:15

The kingdom of nature: 10:47

The kingdom of purposes: 13:44

The nihilistic rejection of the kingdom of purposes: 25:30

The third formula of the categorical imperative: 35:53

Only morality brings harmony into the purposes of rational beings: 44:56

The type of the moral law: 57:24

The role of purposiveness in Kant's system: 1:00:59

Morality sets truly free: 1:10:46

Man is a citizen of two worlds: 1:13:53

The kingdom of grace: 1:24:25

Kant tries to save humans from the cliffs of empiricism and enthusiasm: 1:35:37

Kant's reception of Swedenborg: 1:47:44

Thanks: 1:56:52

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Whatever can serve as a means for a purpose has a price, i. e. a value which can be compensated. Rational and autonomous beings however, since they are the ones who can give purposes and without whom no purposes and therefore no values could be, have dignity, i. e. a value in themselves. Reverence for human dignity, that is for the autonomy of humanity, is the whole morality. To have shown and proven this is Kant's great accomplishment.

Quote: 0:08

The categorical imperative according to the 1st formula: 1:14

Means and purpose in itself, price and dignity: 6:04

Atheism is disbelieve in the purpose in itself: 34:17

The categorical imperative according to the 2nd formula: 50:17

Humans may be used as means, as long as there is reverence for their freedom at the same time: 1:01:50

Morality is conditioned on transcendental idealism: 1:22:58

The second wording of the categorical imperative prevents many possible misunderstandings of the first one: 1:28:25

The inconsistent and anti-human utilitarianism: 1:33:40

The unaufkläred person is led by his sensual impressions, the aufkläred one thinks according to principles: 1:51:47

Human dignity in justice and law: 2:01:02

Human dignity in international law and crimes against humanity: 2:03:43

Reverence is owed to humanity, not to the human: 2:18:05

Morality is reverence for humanity, not pity with the creature and its sensitivities: 2:37:04

Humans are not equal, but the humanity in all of them is: 2:45:51

Thanks: 3:04:07

The categorical imperative is at the center of Kant's writings on moral philosophy. Its three formulas can be found and are explained in the Groundworks to the Metaphysics of Morals: https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf. The categorical imperative as well as the type of the moral law are also described in the Critique of Practical Reason: https://www.bard.edu/library/arendt/pdfs/bc_Arendt_Kant_CritiquePracticalReason.pdf. I reccomend also reading Kant's handwritten estate on moral philosophy: http://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ (I am not aware of any English translation) along with those two texts, which includes many reflections on the categorical imperative as well as various wordings of it.

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

It's not just important what but also how a philosopher thinks. His method helps in better grasping him and the results of his thinking. But more then that, it can also help in one's own aufklärung.

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Through our reason we give ourselves a moral law. The categorical imperative is expressed in three formulas by Kant, whose wording is very different but which have the same spirit. The most well known of them says that we should only act according to such a maxim through which we can want for it to become a universal law. And this means simply that a person should be consistent and in unity with himself, instead of self-contradicting and allowing himself what he would forbid others.

Quote: 0:08

Kant's teachings on the categorical imperative are often misunderstood: 0:17

There are three different formulas of the categorical imperative: 12:05

The objective-formal formula of the categorical imperative: 26:25

The type of the moral law: 31:41

Homo phaenomenon and homo noumenon: 51:05

The inconsistency and double standards of evil people: 1:07:46

The categorical imperative is for acting what the principle of contradiction is for thinking and crimes happen for the same reason as errors: 1:27:46

Kant's moral principle is a merely formal one: 1:48:34

Material moral principles can only lure or threaten: 2:07:00

We don't ought to do what's good, rather what we ought to do is good: 2:14:01

Thanks: 2:26:36

The imperatives according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/imperatives-according-to-Kant.jpg

The categorical imperative is at the center of Kant's writings on moral philosophy. Its three formulas can be found and are explained in the Groundworks to the Metaphysics of Morals: https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf. The categorical imperative as well as the type of the moral law are also described in the Critique of Practical Reason: https://www.bard.edu/library/arendt/pdfs/bc_Arendt_Kant_CritiquePracticalReason.pdf. I reccomend also reading Kant's handwritten estate on moral philosophy: http://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ (I am not aware of any English translation) along with those two texts, which includes many reflections on the categorical imperative as well as various wordings of it.

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:
https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Each inclination is a chain. It binds us to the objects which we need for satisfying it. And the more we satisfy it the more we become dependent on it through habit and also get numb towards the pleasure. Whoever wants to be happy therefore should not chase after satisfaction of his needs but strive for having as little needs as possible. Kant recommends along with Epicurus a modest life: Don’t deny yourself delights, don’t live in complete asceticism, but be content with little and simple delights, enjoy other pleasures from time to time when there is an opportunity, but don’t make yourself dependent on them.

Quote: 0:08

The positive path towards happiness: Get what you require: 0:38

The negative path towards happiness: Require little: 19:10

Modesty instead of wantoness: 26:21

People should be able to do without, but not actually do without everything: 38:36

Whoever is dependent on things is immoral and unhappy: 1:04:14

Kant's advices: 1:35:26

- Abstain from futile desires: 1:36:13

- Think how many live without whatever is a need to you: 1:39:54

- Don’t let habits turn into inclinations through habit: 1:46:31

- Always keep some pleasures in prospect for later: 2:08:18

- Don’t sacrifice the whole for a part: 2:22:20

- Keep in mind that every gain is a loss and the other way around: 2:30:54

Conclusion: 2:41:24

Thanks: 2:45:16

The posture of modesty Kant discusses mostly in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up and in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa19/ (I am not aware of any English translations).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

To understand a philosopher's philosophical project, it is helpful to understand what philosophy itself means to him. For Kant it can be taken in two different ways: According to the school concept it is rational cognition from concepts and especially metaphysics: The cognition of the Supersensual, especially of God, freedom and immortality of the soul. According to the world concept on the other hand it is love of wisdom and the philosopher is the lawgiver of reason who asks what we can know, what we would should and what we can hope for.

Overiew over science according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Science-according-to-Kant.jpg

Overiew over philosophy according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Philosophy-according-to-Kant.jpg

Overiew over metaphysics according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Metaphysics-according-to-Kant-scaled.jpg

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai