More Kant

My critique of Kant was cut short by running long. I mean, I thought the post was already too long and decided to finish it, but then there was one more thing that I wanted to add.

Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey!

Is it just me? Or is this the crux of the matter?

Obey! Only a Prussian could write it. The problem is that even Prussians have a conscience. And I use conscience in a broader sense of the word, not only in the do-good one. What I call conscience is the thing that makes it so difficult for a human being to act against its own beliefs, whether these lead him to do good or evil. This is precisely the reason that control of what people think,    whether through the most powerful method of all, religion, against which Kant argues with zeal, or the control of the press,    is so important for government.

It is also the reason why religion is so often used for evil as recent history continues to prove over and over again. This is to say that it is not that I don't absolutely agree with Kant that religion is a form of immaturity used by people who are too lazy and cowardly (not to mention dumb) to think on their own and prefer to be manipulated by individuals for their own shady purposes,    often power, more often enrichment,    even if it means paying a high price for it. Neither it is that I don't agree with Kant that a free society that allows its citizens to think and act freely and generally treats man in a manner appropriate to its dignity, profits itself. History presents enough evidence of this: freedom of thought usually leads to prosperity and enrichment. Every golden age in the past was associated with it. There is not enough that can be said in praise of freedom.

So what is my point? you ask. Just that here again Kant is being disingenuous, freedom of thought and press is not innocuous, neither is the arguing man the most obedient. It is a hard balance to strike, for a authoritarian absolute monarch like Der Alte Fritz, between the control that will preserve the status quo and keep him in power and the civil freedom that is conducive to prosperity. Let us not forget that powerful armies require very deep pockets.


I finish with a quote of one of my favourite passages of this essay:

Thus a public can only achieve enlightenment of this kind slowly. A revolution may well put an end to autocratic despotism and to rapacious or power-seeking oppression, but it will never produce a true reform in ways of thinking. Instead, new prejudices, like the ones they replaced, will serve as a leash to control the great unthinking mass.

All of the great mistakes that plagued 20th century Europe and led to its decline could have been avoided if people only read Kant (and took him seriously). I fear this lesson has not been learned yet as recycled demagogies take over our continent lead by the hand of economical crisis and xenophobia. But Kant has a faith in humanity that I unfortunately cannot share and I'm constantly depressed when reading this little book by the contrast between Kant's positive thinking and hope for the future and the cold facts of two centuries of history after his death.