Most times when I hear someone on a tear about the dangers of “political correctness” I roll my eyes and move on. So many such complaints involve ire at being held to standards of basic human decency, say, or having to share resources, opportunities, or public spaces. But there are many exceptions, when the so-called “PC” impulse to broaden inclusivity and soften offense produces monsters of condescending paternalism. Take the above omnibus edition of “Kant’s Critiques” printed by Wilder Publications in 2008. The publisher, with either kind but painfully obtuse motives, or with an eye toward pre-empting some kind of legal blowback, has seen fit to include a disclaimer at the bottom of the title page:
This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.
Where to begin? First, we must point out Wilder Publications’ strange certainty that a hypothetical Kant of today would express his ideas in tolerant and liberal language. The supposition has the effect of patronizing the dead philosopher and of absolving him of any responsibility for his blind spots and prejudices, assuming that he meant well but was simply a blinkered and unfortunate “product” of his time.
But who’s to say that Kant didn’t damn well mean his comments that offend our sensibilities today, and wouldn’t still mean them now were he somehow resurrected and forced to update his major works? Moreover, why assume that all current readers of Kant do not share his more repugnant views? Secondly, who is this edition for? Philosopher Brian Leiter, who brought this to our attention, humorously titles it “Kant’s 3 Critiques—rated PG-13.” One would hope that any young person precocious enough to read Kant would have the ability to recognize historical context and to approach critically statements that sound unethical, bigoted, or scientifically dated to her modern ears. One would hope parents buying Kant for their kids could do the same without chiding from publishers.
None of this is to say that there aren’t substantive reasons to examine and critique the prejudicial assumptions and biases of classical philosophers. A great many recent scholars have done exactly that. In her Philosophy of Science and Race, for example, Naomi Zack observes that “according to contemporary standards, both [Hume and Kant] were virulent white supremacists.” Yet she also analyzes the problems with applying “contemporary standards” to their systems of thought, which were not necessarily racist in the sense we mean so much as “racialist,” dependent on an “ontology of human races, which underlay Hume and Kant’s value judgments about what they thought were racial differences” (an ontology, it’s worth noting, that produced systemic and institutional racism). Zack respects the vast gulf that separates our judgments from those of the past while still holding the philosophers accountable for contradictions and inconsistencies in their thought that are clearly the products of willful ignorance, chauvinism, and unexamined bias. An informed historical approach allows us to see how books are not simply “products of their time” but are situated in networks of knowledge and ideology that shaped their authors’ assumptions and continue to shape our own—ideologies that persist into the present and cannot and should not be papered over or easily explained away with skittish warning labels and didactic lectures about how much things have changed. In a great many ways of course, they have. And in some significant others, they simply haven’t. To pretend otherwise for the sake of the children is disingenuous and does a grave disservice to both author and reader.
via Leiter Reports
Man Shot in Fight Over Immanuel Kant’s Philosophy in Russia
100 Free Philosophy Courses Online
Josh Jones is a writer and musician based in Durham, NC. Follow him at @jdmagness
I’ve only read Critique of Pure Reason– what’s dated and non-PC about Kant’s ethics? I can only recall that he believed some people weren’t capable of being rational actors/rule-makers and that they were therefore exempt from the categorical imperative. I can see how that exemption could be easily used to further an imperialist agenda. However, when I read him I found his categorical imperative to be a convincing case for the Golden Rule, particularly strong in that it’s universal. Keep in mind I don’t want to defend or apologize the guy, I’m just curious.
Here’s an example of Kant’s thoughts on race. It is deplorable.
I don’t think that this means Kant is no longer worthy of study or some other nonsense, but it’s still necessary to consider when interpreting Kant, especially in the context of interpreting his ethics.
There is absolutely no mention to the categorical imperative in the Critique of Pure Reason. Neither ethics or racial comments. In fact, he adscribes the same faculties to any human being, and considers all humans to be rational to same degree.
See also Susan M. Shell’s chapter on Kant in The German Invention of Race (full text here: http://kemetrise.sytes.net:8245/Kemetrise%20Library/The%20German%20Invention%20of%20Race.pdf)
This is a scam book companies that publishes editions of public domain and open source text in pre-formatted book templates. They also got outrage for putting these in editions of the Constitution and I’ll bet they’re in every book they publish because they don’t publish anything contemporary, that is, under copyright. But don’t let that get in the way of your lazy outrage that couldn’t even google the publisher for context.
While Kant might remain the darling of some “intellectual” circles, modern brain science with its acknowledgement of the total domination of one’s “reason” by the subconscious mind along with its countless biases has shown Kant to have missed the boat, by and large.
Sounds like the SJWs have been at work…
I lived under communism for some time, and most books that weren’t fully compatible with the dogma would have a preface like this one.
That statement is there mainly for liability reasons. Welcome to the reality of American litigiousness.
Lazy indeed. First, Kant would reply to criticisms “in tolerant and liberal language” because he *was* a liberal. The volumes shown here are classics of modern liberal theory. Second, all the evidence of his moral transgressions cited above is taken from minor works, *not* from the works shown here.
There are at least two interpretive perspectives from which one can read and analyze an author’s ideas:
First, analyzing, interpreting and judging those ideas from the views, values, and beliefs of one’s own later time. Assuming that one views one’s own time as more “advanced,” enlightened,” “informed,” it is easy to demonstrate how “backwards,” “ignorant,” “erroneous” the earlier author’s views and values were from ours.
Second, analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating those ideas within the context of the author’s own time, and the values, views, and circumstances preceding his own and that of his contemporaries.
It is true that too many Enlightenment-era thinkers did not conceptually draw all the conclusions that we have deduced or gone beyond from our time-perspective, and they may have acted in various ways that were inconsistent with their own stated beliefs, ideas and ideals.
But if one attempts to see this as an intellectual evolution through historical time, then they were way-stations in the history of ideas, no more incomplete and inconsistent than, no doubt, others who come after us will consider our ideas and actions.
Such dogmatic intolerance and implied hubris of standing on the top of an intellectual Mount Olympus from which to judge (and condemn) those who preceded the judgment-maker as well as his contemporaries is an indication of misplaced “pretense of knowledge” and a dangerous arrogance.
What is deplorable about it? Very logical.
While the philosophical arguments are quite interesting. I think we need to put this into perspective. They also put these warnings on a number of other documents, including the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, which got them into the news a few years ago.
If anyone has children that are actually interested in reading Kant but also need to be told that attitudes have changed in the years since Kant wrote his works, I’d be very much surprised.
The site linked above contains malware–don’t visit it! (And OpenCulture, please consider removing it!)
I mean Josh Jones’s link.
Tomás de Torquemada would be proud of that “parental guidance” warning. We live (once more) in dangerous times for freedom of thought.
Ha! And the Germans were so smug thinking there could never be a Kant for Dummies.